cated? when their minds were opened and fed with that first deep stock of ideas, which Lord Brougham declares exceeds in value and in vigour all that are subsequently acquired? What was England when they were born and bred? What were those among whom they lived? Under what influences were they brought up? To a large extent Catholic. Not exclusively so, of course; but to such an extent as to colour their character and influence their ideas.

Shakspeare was born in the early part of the reign of Elizabeth, when only a few years had elapsed since England was ruled by a Catholic sovereign, and solemnly reconciled to the Holy See. It may be conjectured, then, that Shakspeare's parents were most probably Catholics. And there is much to confirm this conclusion. In the house in which he was born, an ancient document was discovered purporting to be the will of John Shakspeare the father, and sufficiently attesting his faith by its fine old Catholic commencement: "I commend my soul to Almighty God and to the Blessed Mary ever Virgin." It is true that Malone, with the instinct of a Protestant critic, rejects the genuineness of this document; but a Catholic will as much suspect the impartiality of his reasoning as that of Spelman, when, from a similar bias, he rejects the evidences afforded to the ancient orthodoxy of England, derived from books purporting to have been written in the age of Alfred; and which the ingenious antiquary labours to prove were written some centuries afterwards. One answer suffices to all such theories. They were never heard of until the necessities of the Protestant argument required them. To recur, however, to Shakspeare. We said many other facts confirmed the conclusion as to his Catholic education, or at least the Catholic colouring of his character, and its influence upon his mind. Of course, one great fact upon the subject would be the style and spirit of his poetry. Does that betray a latent love of Catholicity? Does it exhibit the influence of Catholicity? This question we propose to discuss. And our conviction is, that the poetry of Shakspeare does exhibit the character of his mind, and the influence of Catholicity upon it; an influence often unconscious, but on that account making the more interesting the fact of its existence. When he wrote, Elizabeth was in the zenith of her power, and the Catholics were depressed and persecuted. But that does not prove that Catholicity was extinguished. It is notorious that a large number of her subjects who ostensibly "conformed" were really attached to the ancient faith. On the part of the queen herself, the controversy was really as to the question of supremacy, or rather as to her own legitimacy. Her father had

only quarrelled on the supremacy; and she would gladly have submitted to that, if her own legitimacy could have been admitted. One would expect à priori, then, to find Shakspeare pandering, indeed, to royal passions and popular prejudices as to the question of Roman supremacy; but on all other subjects betraying a Catholic spirit, or the influence of it, at all events, upon his mind. And so it is.

We need not remind our readers that a large proportion of Shakspeare's plays are founded upon stories, the scenes of which are laid in Catholic life, and many of them in English history; which, up to the very last reign (with the exception of a few years), had been Catholic. And it cannot but be obIserved that he reverts to those scenes and times with enthusiastic admiration, and in no spirit of detraction. We might, indeed, expect (as we have already observed) to find him embrace every opportunity, from the reign of John to that of Henry VIII., to pander to popular prejudices as to the "domination" of Rome. And accordingly, in the play of "King John"-the earliest of the historical series-we have some celebrated passages, breathing the spirit of "the royal supremacy;" and which have served ever since as watchwords against Papal usurpation." He represents the king as saying:

66

"What earthly name to interrogatories
Can task the free breath of a sacred king?
Thou canst not, cardinal, devise a name
So slight, unworthy, and ridiculous,

To charge me to an answer, as the pope.

Tell him this tale; and from the mouth of England

Add this much more,-That no Italian priest

Shall tithe or toll in our dominions;

But as we under heaven are supreme head,
So, under him, that great supremacy,
Where we do reign, we will alone uphold,
Without the assistance of a mortal hand:
So tell the pope; all reverence set apart,
To him, and his usurp'd authority.""

Our readers will recognise in the phrase, “Italian priest," the very expression applied by Lord J. Russell to Archbishop Cullen, in the debates on Papal Aggression; so lasting are prejudices once implanted in the popular mind. And they will recollect the next line as quoted by the late Lord Chancellor (Truro) at a City banquet during the height of that agitation. The very chords of national feeling, so skilfully played on by Shakspeare under the patronage of the statesmen of Elizabeth, were made to vibrate again, after the lapse of three centuries, by the ministers of Victoria. But let no one imagine these passages prove any thing as to Shakspeare's real feelings,

Listen to the lines in the same play, in which he afterwards depicts the true character and actual conduct of the monarch in whose mouth he has just put such high-sounding sentiments of independence and freedom.

"Cousin, away for England; haste before:

And, ere our coming, see thou shake the bags
Of hoarding abbots; angels imprisoned
Set thou at liberty: the fat ribs of peace
Must by the hungry now be fed upon :
Use our commission in his utmost force."

To which the Bastard replies with glee:

"Bell, book, and candle shall not drive me back,
When gold and silver becks me to come on."

Does not this look like sarcasm? Could Shakspeare fail to recollect how recently a sovereign, similar in spirit and in conduct, had issued such a commission? Could he be oblivious of the plunder and murder of "abbots" under the father of the reigning monarch? No argument against the supposition can be drawn from the fact of Elizabeth's relationship to the royal plunderer; for it is not to be doubted that she in her heart disapproved of his conduct; so that Shakspeare knew he could not offend her by his sarcasm. It was for her mother, not her father, she was jealous; for her father was her mother's murderer. Certain it is, if he had meant sarcasm, it could not have been more severe; and that he most aptly portrayed the spirit and temper of the royal ruffians who had plundered the Church, and the rapacious courtiers who had proved their ready tools.

Shakspeare has himself supplied the best comment upon his own sarcasın in those severe lines upon

"That sly devil,

That daily break-vow; he that wins of all,

Of kings, of beggars, old men, young men, maids—
That smooth-fac'd gentleman, tickling commodity—
Commodity, the bias of the world-

The world, which of itself is poised well,
Made to run even upon even ground,
Till this advantage, this vile-drawing bias,
This sway of motion, this commodity,
Makes it take head from all indifferency,
From all direction, purpose, course, intent."

All this, of course, would be perfectly consistent with Shakspeare's seizing every opportunity to hold up to royal and national detestation the supremacy of the Holy See; and of course this disposition would especially manifest itself in re

gard to the legates and cardinals, as most closely connected with Rome. In the fulfilment of this purpose he is utterly unscrupulous as to truth, and distorts and falsifies the facts of history in a most unprincipled manner. Thus, in the "King. John," he represents Pandulph, the papal legate, as driving a sordid sort of traffic with the king in the independence of England, and engaged in a kind of conspiracy to enslave it; whereas Magna Charta attests that the papal legate was not Pandulph, but the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that both worked together for the obtaining of that great charter. So, in "Henry V.," he portrays Cardinal Beaufort in the most odious colours, both covetous and ambitious, proud, cruel, and overbearing, and the murderer of the "good Duke of Gloucester;" and represents the king as paying the warmest tribute of respect to the character of the duke, and as speaking in the strongest terms against the cardinal. The truth of history is precisely the reverse of all this: the cardinal's was a truly noble character, and the duke was a designing traitor; and the king himself well knew it.

In the next play, "Richard II.," is a passage on which Shakspeare dwells with a fondness and fulness of expression. quite unnecessary, unless as the outbreak of his own inward feelings, on the character of Catholic England. He makes John of Gaunt, on the bed of death, utter a long speech, in which occur the following lines:

"This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, the seat of Mars,

This other Eden, demi-paradise;

This fortress built by nature for herself,
Against infection and the hand of war;

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in the silver sea,

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,

Fear'd by their breed, and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home
(For Christian service and true chivalry),
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,
Of the world's ransom, blessed Mary's Son:
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out (I die pronouncing it),
Like to a tenement or pelling farm.'

The latter expressions are singularly applicable to the condition of England in the reign of Edward VI., when the Churchlands were literally "leased out" to the courtiers like so many farms.

Let it be remarked, we are not in the least attempting

to conceal that Shakspeare was an accomplice in that great conspiracy of talent and tyranny which Dr. Newman so eloquently describes, to poison all the traditions of the age with the perversions of Protestantism. On the contrary, we are showing that he was a prime and powerful agent in that conspiracy, perhaps the most powerful; for, as we set out with saying, he was, and is, and ever will be, a popular poet; and while a Coke could pervert the laws, a Shakspeare could pervert the passions of the people, and instil into their minds prejudices which centuries could not eradicate. But what we are proving is, that those prejudices which he conceived himself under a necessity by his complicity in that conspiracy to implant, to propagate, and perpetuate, were only such as related to Rome and the Pope, and did not affect any other part of the Catholic religion,-her most sacred mysteries, her divine dogmas, or her sacramental system. And our argument is fortified by the fact, that on topics connected with the Holy See, the great poet did his utmost to awaken and deepen popular prejudices; while he never makes an allusion, or an observation, in the least tending to depart from the respect due to the Catholic doctrines or sacraments, or to any other part of the Catholic system, although ample opportunities offered themselves for his alluding to such subjects; opportunities of which, as we shall show, he systematically availed himself only to convey sentiments of the most sincere reverence and respect, and breathing much of the true Catholic spirit.

It is in perfect consistency with our theory, therefore, that we find the poet, in "Henry VI.," representing Cardinal Beaufort in the vilest colours, in utter and unscrupulous opposition to the truth. There can be no question that the popular impression in this country as to the pride of Roman prelates has its source in Shakspeare. No one can read this play without perceiving how powerfully all the most odious traits of overbearing ambition, unrelenting animosity, and unyielding pride, are accumulated in the portrait he draws of the cardinal. In the dispute between him and the duke, he always displays the cardinal as animated by the most bitter animosity and malice; and finally represents him as the murderer of the duke, and as dying in agonies of remorse. How false all this was, Shakspeare could hardly fail to know. The facts were then far more recent and fresh in men's minds than they are now; yet at this distance of time, one or two dates and simple truths speak forcibly as to the mendacity of these misrepresentations. The duke's death took place in 1447, some years previous to which the cardinal had retired