WESTERN ENTRANCE TO WESTMINSTER ABBEY. joined in the persecution of the Lollards, were, in an important measure, the agents of the Roman power. Now, however, Henry and his Protestant successors developed and carried forward a persecution so bitter, so cruel, so absolutely fiendish, that the treatment of the Lollards was merciful in comparison. The "Lollards' Prison" in Lambeth Palace was too humane a prison for the true Protestants of the Reformation, and the dungeons of the Tower of London, hitherto reserved for socalled "traitors' were now filled with so-called "heretics," and all the terrible "punishments" heretofore reserved for "traitors" were now shared by "heretics." We have neither space nor heart for the heart-sickening story of the religious tyranny of the Reformation period in England, and only allude to it to note the fact that the same love of liberty which has ever characterized the English masses in civil and political affairs was evinced by them in religious; it was only for a short season, while they were blinded by the marvelous light, and until they had become sufficiently used to it to be able to see the truth and to realize the freedom-producing nature of truth, that they submitted to the terrible religious despe ism of the crown and the ecclesiastical authorities. This religious despotism continued, wh occasional slight relaxation in rigor followed by terrible augmented fury, until and after the Commonwealth-the persecutors of one period becoming the victims of the next, and in turn again the persecutors. There are memorials in all parts of England of the sad and terrible years of religioas bigotry-some like the Stone of Hadleigh (commemorating the faithfulness of Dr. Rowland Taylor) which speak directly, others, like the Lollard's Prison of Lambeth Palace, the Star Chamber of Westminster Hall, the dusgeons of the Tower of London, the Covenanters' Prison on the Bass Rock, which less directly but emphatically bear their testimony, and still others, like Westminster Abbey, with its many tombs and monuments, and many of the cathedrals and churches, which were the scenes of the unchristian zeal of bishops, pastors and laymen against the "heretics" who obeyed God rather than men. During all the years of religious persecution, the struggle between king and people for abso lute civil sovereignty on the one hand and for the Magna Charta on the other, was continued with but brief intervals, the chief period of rest being the short reign of the mild and good Edward VI., who succeeded Henry VIII.; but Edward died when he was but sixteen years old, before his kindly heart was hardened or his Christian feelings corrupted, and was succeeded all too soon by his sister, "the bloody Queen Mary," the Roman Church returning with her to power, and Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, Hooper, and nearly three hundred less conspicuous followers of Christ, a "noble army of martyrs," went to the stake. Mary's half-sister, Elizabeth, upon her death in 1558, came to the throne, and the Reformation revived-it has been claimed that "the good Queen Bess" permitted no executions for religious opinions; but the convenient appellation of "traitor" was but a cloak under which too many went to the Tower and to the scaffold for their rehgion, even under her comparatively mild reign James gave the realm more Bibles but no more liberty, and Charles I., nominally a Protestant, proved worse than Mary-she was doubtless actu ated by sincere, if terribly mistaken, convictions of duty, while Charles had no extenuating plea, being destitute of religion, truth, or honor. His defiance of the Magna Charta, his cruel, inhuman tyranny in civil and religious matters, sealed his doom; the people had borne much, but would bear no more. rageous of human kind," an outspoken foe of oppression, who dared to speak and act as he thought, in spite of king or "protector;" John Pym, the ablest and greatest and best of the true patriots of his day; and the well-known Bradshaw, Whitelock, Ludlow, Marten, Vane, Cromwell, St. John, Skippon, Fairfax, William Prynne, John Milton, Algernon Sidney, Richard Baxter, and John Bunyan. Hampden died before the Fuller says of Puritanism, that "In the days of King Edward was conceived; in the reign of Queen Mary was born (though beyond sea at Commonwealth had taken shape, as did Pym. Frankfort); in the reign of. Queen Elizabeth was nursed and reared; under King James grew up a youth or tall stripling; but towards the end of King Charles's reign shot up to the full stature and strength of a man, able not only to cope with but to conquer the hierarchy, its adversary"-this mighty spirit and power of Puritanism. And this is the "spirit or power' which now is to drive Charles from the throne to the block, and to suspend for a time the very form of monarchy; this is the mighty influence which, under the controlling genius of Cromwell, is to substitute, for a decade, for the royal despotism a military despotism, brilliant and all-conquering Richard D while its wonderful head lives, but to go out like a spent rocket so soon as he shall have passed away. Among the early actors against Charles I., the most conspicuous were John Hampden, a good and true man, who was the idol of the populace; John Lilburne, whom Hume describes as "the most turbulent, but the most upright and cou In 1638 John Lilburne and John Warton were summoned to the Star Chamber in Westminster Hall, for "unlawfully printing and publishing libellous and seditious books," in direct violation of a recent decree by Laud placing the press under censorship. The prisoners were required to take an oath to answer truly any interrogatories the Court might propound; both refused, Lilburne affirming that no "free-born Englishman could be required to criminate himself." From this reply he was ever afterwards popularly called "Free-born John." Bradshaw became President of the Great State Council, and Milton its Secretary, and the others, except Sidney, Baxter, Bunyan, Prynne and Lilburne, were among its members. Of these five exceptions, Sidney was a positive, uncompromising republican, and could not be a Commonwealth man; Baxter and Bunyan were more religionists than politicians, but neither hesitated in denouncing Cromwell and his rule; Prynne was so decidedly an anti-Cromwellian that he was unlawfully ejected from Parliament; and Lilburne was so obnoxious to Cromwell that an attempt was made in 1651 to silence him, and indeed to get entirely rid of him, by accusing him of trea Of son-this failed in his acquittal by the court. those who were co-members of the Council with Cromwell, the foremost afterwards, upon discovering the true character of Cromwell, became his opponents, the only exception being Whitelock, a royalist though not favorable to Charles I., who so well understood the "protector" that he urged him to be consistent and assume the title and insignia, as he had already exercised more than the prerogatives, of king; Vane and Ludlow were republicans and patriots, the latter character inducing them to hold the former in abeyance and accept office in the Commonwealth, in the delusive hope that the latter might conduce to the welfare of their country-so true a republican was Vane that he was put to death after the restoration, because Charles II. declared he was "too and Cromwell dies; Richard is his heir and s ceeds him as "protector." He is a good, wellmeaning, amiable young man, but utterly unfitted to wield the usurped sceptre; he is quietly set aside and Charles II. ascends the throne. Alas! he dangerous to be permitted to live," and so true, though greater than common mortals in abity; was Ludlow that when he found that the Cromwellian influence in the government could not be restrained, he retired from public life, surrendering a high position in the army rather than coöperate in sustaining so absolute a despotism, and returned to office only upon the death of Cromwell; Bradshaw was a true and incorruptible friend of liberty, and, though not certainly a republican, could not connive at despotism under Cromwell more than under Charles I. 00 CHARLES II. But not only is JAMES 11. has learned frum his father's fail ures and fall be one lesson-that of intense hare towards altu had been the agents of juster and liberty in overthrowiTE the unjust tyrant, and his twentyfive years' reiga is one of childish weaknesses combined with AND MARY. possible remedy, driving bim from the kingdom, and giving the throne to William, Prince of Orange, and his wife, Mary. daughter of James, who reign jointly. The ship whit bore William and Mary to England carned tyrant in Cromwell his worst characteristic; with a a grand flag with the grander motto: "I w possible grain of genuine Puritanism, he betrayed maintain the Protestant religion and the liberties a vast amount of hypocritical cant: witness his of England." The revolution was easily effected. words when he had shown what an unscrupulous and the effort of James to recover the crown, tyrant he could be in dissolving the Parliament-sitsed by the French monarch and by a considerable "When I went to the house, I did not think to portion of the Irish people, was speedily and have done this; but perceiving the spirit of God effectually defeated. And now began England's strong upon me, I could no longer consult flesh happiest days; William and his consort were true and blood." to the pledge of their flag-motto, and happiness and Oliver Cromwell, however, was but mortal, prosperity have been the fruit of liberty and justice. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEA. BY CAPTAIN S. B. LUCE, U.S.N. SOVEREIGNTY of the Sea is a term often used as a mere fiction of history to express a certain preponderance of maritime influence possessed by one particular State over all others. The Tyrians, for example, in the early history of navigation, called themselves "Kings of the Sea;" probably from the fact that they controlled the ocean trade of the world. The Phoenicians claimed the exclusive right to the tin trade with Britain, and resorted to force to prevent all others from participating in its advantages. The Athenians, when in the meridian of their naval power, were the Sovereigns of the Sea, no other nation being able to oppose their fleets. Carthage, in her turn, claimed this dominion, it being her boast that, save by her permission, a Roman could not even so much as wash his hands in the sea." According to Cæsar, the Veneti formed the dominant naval power on the Atlantic coasts of Gaul; but after the battle of Actium and the consolidation of the Empire, the Romans exercised undisputed dominion over the seas for several centuries. Canute, when elected King by the fleet of Britain in 1014, said, "Thou, O Sea! art subject to me as is the land on which I sit; nor is there any one therein who dare resist my commands." and Indian Oceans; and the Spaniards asserted absolute dominion over all the seas of Spanish America. The pretensions of these two countries were treated with but little indulgence, however, by other maritime States. The right of dominion of the sovereign of the shore over the contiguous sea has sometimes been pushed beyond the limits of reason. Thus, the claim of Russia to the sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean, north of the 51st parallel of latitude, as a close sea, was considered by our Government in 1822 to be against the rights of other nations; and in claiming exemption from the payment of the "Sound dues" imposed by Denmark, the American Secretary of State vindicated a great national principle of extensive and various application. While the open sea is not capable of being possessed as private property, still it is a wellsettled principle that navigable rivers which flow through a territory, and the navigable waters included in bays and between headlands and arms of the sea, belong to the sovereign of the adjacent territory, as being necessary to the safety of the nation and to the undisputed control of the neighboring shores. Applying this principle to England In a stricter sense, the sovereignty or dominion at the time of its conquest by the Romans, it is of the sea means the exclusive right of domain clear that, as both sides of the English Channel and territorial jurisdiction extended to bays, arms belonged to the Norman princes, the Channel of the sea, or portions of the sea inside of lines itself was subject to their jurisdiction. During the drawn from one prominent headland to another, century and a half which followed the conquest, called in England the King's Chambers. Thus, the French Kings of England were more powerful the United States assert the right of domain over on the Continent than the Kings of France, and Long Island Sound, and to the control of the had the Plantagenets, as at one time seemed likely, waters lying inside a line drawn, say, from Mon- succeeded in uniting all France under their govtauk Point to Gay Head. Some countries have ex- ernment, England would have been regarded as a tended this claim to narrow seas and straits adja- mere outlying province, and the island, as well as cent to their shores; as the sovereignty formerly the intervening waters, as property of the French claimed by the Republic of Venice over the Adri- Kings. John, the seventh of these Kings, issued, atic; that claimed by England over the narrow in the second year of his reign, an edict declaring seas; and that by Denmark over the Sound and that any ship failing to strike and lower her sails at the two belts which form the outlet of the Baltic. the command of the King's lieutenant or admiral Other countries have claimed the right to cershould be treated as an enemy. This edict was tain parts of the open sea by virtue of discovery. written in Norman French, the language of the Thus, the Portuguese claimed the monopoly of Three years later (1204), Normandy was trade with the Indies through the South Atlantic lost to England; but the idea of owning the court. waters which flowed through what had been one country, was kept alive long afterwards by the spirit of conquest which, for more than one hundred years, led the English Kings to seek to establish an Empire on the Continent. They came to regard the crown of France as a mere appendage to the crown of England, and their exclusive right to the intervening waters in no way interfered with. The claim of proprietorship over the narrow seas, founded originally in reason, was of course forfeited by the English with their loss of foothold on the Continent; yet in violation of the natural rights of others, they not only persisted in regarding the opposite shores of the Channel as their proper boundary, but by an unjustifiable interpretation of the words finis terræ, extended it from Cape Finisterre in Spain to the land of Staten in Norway. The manner in which the recognition of the claim was enforced, rather than the claim itself, rendered it extremely odious to all nations whose ships were obliged to pass within the wide range of its exaction, and led to long and bloody wars, particularly with the Dutch, who resisted it with more pertinacity than any other nation. It is related that in 1554 Lord Howard of Effingham, having been sent in command of a squadron to escort Philip, son of the King of Spain, to England, on meeting the Spanish fleet of 160 sail in the Channel, fired at the ships and forced then to strike their colors and lower their topsails, in reverence to the English flag before he would permit his own ships to salute the Spanish Prince. The second Lord Howard forced another Spanish fleet, some fifteen years later, to submit to a similar humiliation, in acknowledgment that Elizabeth possessed the sovereignty of the seas which surrounded her kingdom. In 1730 Lieutenant Thomas Smith, who was, during the absence of his Captain, in temporary command of the Gosport (frigate), fired into a French frigate, the two countries being at peace, for the reason that while coming down the Sound she had neglected the usual salute. On the complaint of the French Ambassador, Lieutenant Smith was dismissed the service, to be commissioned the next day as Captain, and to live in history as "Tom of Ten Thousand." This "privilege of the flag" was maintained by England for 606 years (dating from the edict of John), the last case of its recognition being demanded or r ring in August, 1806. But, in view of the great naval victories gained under Nelson, it was felt by the British Government that a claim the e' getenment of the age showed to be altogether 1tenable might be honorably and gracefully renounced. Instructions to that effect were, there fore, put in force January 1, 1807. The Channel Islands on the coast of Normandy. where the old Norman French is still spoken, remain to this day a part of the dominions of the British crown, and a substantial memorial of the ancient and direful controversy. And now the Sovereignty of the Sea, or the jurisdiction over adjoining seas, as being necessary to the safety of the nation, is a question of as much importance to the United States to-day as it was to England under the Norman Kings. Our writes on international law all agree in saying that t'e great extent of the American coasts and ther shoalness, together with the natural boundary turnished by the Gulf Stream, entitle us to immunity from belligerent warfare for the space between that limit and the coast line. The Little Belt w2 cruising many miles from the shore, between Cage Henry and Cape Hatteras, yet her being ove hauled by the President was justified by our Government on the ground that she was "hovering on our coasts," and that we had a right to know te character of armed ships in such a situation, Let us apply these principles and deductions to the Florida Channel patrolled by Spanish cruisers — we will not say the Fishery question on our Eastern coast, for the reason that all questions of international rights between the United States and Great Britain may be settled by arbitration; but it is not so with Spain, and we must be prepared where our interests may clash with hers, to act with vigor first, and to negotiate afterwards. But in vie of the heavy sea-going iron-clads of Spain, o high speed, and armed with the latest of English rifled ordnance, how are we, with a navy at the "low ebb" to which ours has fallen, according to our highest official authority-how are we to matain the freedom of the Florida Channel, that great highway of ocean commerce, in the event of some future Virginius case terminating less happy for the United States? This great question is det tainly worthy the calm and careful reflection of our legislators. |