Volume 1 / Part 500 — NOTES.

1 (return) [ NOTE A, p. 10. The parliament also granted the queen the duties of tonnage and poundage; but this concession was at that time regarded only as a matter of form, and she had levied these duties before they were voted by parliament. But there was another exertion of power which she practiced, and which people in the present age, from their ignorance of ancient practices, may be apt to think a little extraordinary. Her sister, after the commencement of the war with France, had, from her own authority, imposed four marks on each tun of wine imported, and had increased the poundage a third on all commodities. Queen Elizabeth continued these impositions as long as she thought convenient. The parliament, who had so good an opportunity of restraining these arbitrary taxes when they voted the tonnage and poundage, thought not proper to make any mention of them. They knew that the sovereign, during that age, pretended to have the sole regulation of foreign trade, and that their intermeddling with that prerogative would have drawn on them the severest reproof, if not chastisement. See Forbes, vol. i. p. 132, 133. We know certainly, from the statutes and journals, that no such impositions were granted by parliament.]

2 (return) [ NOTE B, p. 20. Knox, p. 127. We shall suggest afterwards some reasons to suspect, that perhaps no express promise was ever given. Calumnies easily arise during times of faction, especially those of the religious kind, when men think every art lawful for promoting their purpose. The congregation, in their manifesto, in which they enumerate all the articles of the regent’s mal-administration, do not reproach her with this breach of promise. It was probably nothing but a rumor spread abroad to catch the populace. If the Papists have sometimes maintained that no faith was to be kept with heretics, their adversaries seem also to have thought, that no truth ought to be told of idolaters.]

3 (return) [ NOTE C. p. 23. Spotswood, p. 146. Melvil, p. 29. Knox, p. 225, 228. Lesley, lib That there was really no violation of the capitulation of Perth appears from the manifesto of the congregation in Knox, p. 184, in which it is not so much as pretended. The companies of Scotch soldiers were, probably, in Scotch pay, since the congregation complains, that the country was oppressed with taxes to maintain armies. Knox, p, 164, 165. And even if they had been in French pay, it had been no breach of the capitulation, since they were national troops, not French. Knox does not say, (p. 139,) that any of the inhabitants of Perth were tried or punished for their past offences, but only that they were oppressed with the quartering of soldiers; and the congregation, in their manifesto, say only that many of them had fled for fear. This plain detection of the calumny with regard to the breach of the capitulation of Perth, may make us suspect a like calumny with regard to the pretended promise not to give sentence against the ministers. The affair lay altogether between the regent and the laird of Dun; and that gentleman, though a man of sense and character, might be willing to take some general professions for promises. If the queen, overawed by the power of the congregation, gave such a promise in order to have liberty to proceed to a sentence, how could she expect to have power to execute a sentence so insidiously obtained? And to what purpose could it serve?]

4 (return) [ NOTE D, p. 24. Knox, p. 153, 154, 155. This author pretends that this article was agreed to verbally, but that the queen’s scribes omitted it in the treaty which was signed. The story is very unlikely, or rather very absurd; and in the mean time it is allowed, that the article is not in the treaty; nor do the congregation, in their subsequent manifesto, insist upon it. Knox, p. 184. Besides, would the queen regent, in an article of a treaty, call her own religion idolatry?]

5 (return) [ NOTE E, p. 25. The Scotch lords, in their declaration, say, “How far we have sought support of England, or of any other prince, and what just cause we had and have so to do, we shall shortly make manifest unto the world, to the praise of God’s holy name, and to the confusion of fell those that slander us for so doing; for this we fear not to confess, that, as in this enterprise against the devil, against idolatry and the maintainers of the same, we chiefly and only seek God’s glory to be notified unto men, sin to be punished, and virtue to be maintained; so where power faileth of ourselves, we will seek it wheresoever God shall offer the same.” Knox, p. 176.]

6 (return) [ NOTE F, p. 61. This year, the council of Trent was dissolved, which had sitten from 1545. The publication of its decrees excited anew the general ferment in Europe, while the Catholics endeavored to enforce the acceptance of them, and the Protestants rejected them. The religious controversies were too far advanced to expect that any conviction would result from the decrees of this council. It is the only general council which has been held in an age truly learned and inquisitive; and as the history of it has been written with great penetration and Judgment, it has tended very much to expose clerical usurpations and intrigues, and may serve us as a specimen of more ancient councils. No one expects to see another general council, till the decay of learning and the progress of ignorance shall again fit mankind for these great impostures.]

7 (return) [ NOTE G, p. 69. It appears, however, from Randolfs Letters, (see Keith, p. 200,) that some offers had been made to that minister, of seizing Lenox and Darnley, and delivering them into Queen Elizabeth’s hands. Melvil confirms the same story, and says that the design was acknowledged by the conspirators, (p. 56.) This serves to justify the account given by the queen’s party of the Raid of Baith, as it is called. See farther, Goodall, vol. ii. p. 358. The other conspiracy, of which Murray complained, is much more uncertain, and is founded on very doubtful evidence.]

8 (return) [ NOTE H, p. 73. Buchanan confesses that Rizzio was ugly: but it may be inferred, from the narration of that author, that he was young. He says that, on the return of the duke of Savoy to Turin, Rizzio was “in adolescentiæ vigore;” in the vigor of youth. Now, that event happened only a few years before, (lib. xvii. cap. 44.) That Bothwell was young, appears, among many other invincible proofs, from Mary’s instructions to the bishop of Dumblain, her ambassador at Paris; where she says, that in 1559, only eight years before, he was “very young.” He might therefore have been about thirty when he married her. See Keith’s History, p. 388. From the appendix to the Epistolae Regum Scotorum. it appears, by authentic documents, that Patrick, earl of Bothwell, father to James, who espoused Queen Mary, was alive till near the year 1560. Buchanan, by a mistake which has been long ago corrected, calls him James.]

9 (return) [ NOTE I, p. 84. Mary herself confessed, in her instructions to the ambassadors, whom she sent to France, that Bothwell persuaded all the noblemen, that their application in favor of his marriage was agreeable to her. Keith, p. 389. Anderson, vol. i. p. 94. Murray afterwards produced, to Queen Elizabeth’s commissioners, a paper signed by Mary, by which she permitted them to make this application to her. This permission was a sufficient declaration of her intentions, and was esteemed equivalent to a command. Anderson, vol. iv. p. 59. They even asserted that the house in which they met was surrounded with armed men. Goodall, vol. ii. p 141.]

11 (return) [ NOTE K, p. 108 Mary’s complaints of the queen’s partiality in admitting Murray to a conference was a mere pretext, in order to break off the conference. She indeed employs that reason in her order for that purpose, (see Goodall, vol. ii. p. 184;) but in her private letter, her commissioners are directed to make use of that order to prevent her honor from being attacked. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 183. It was therefore the accusation only she was afraid of. Murray was the least obnoxious of all her enemies. He was abroad when her subjects rebelled, and reduced her to captivity. He had only accepted of the regency, when voluntarily proffered him by the nation. His being admitted to Queen Elizabeth’s presence was therefore a very bad foundation for a quarrel, or for breaking off the conference, and was plainly a mere pretence.]

12 (return) [ NOTE L, p. 110. We shall not enter into a long discussion concerning the authenticity of these letters. We shall only remark in general, that the chief objections against them are, that they are supposed to have passed through the earl of Morton’s hands, the least scrupulous of all Mary’s enemies; and that they are, to the last degree, indecent, and even somewhat inelegant, such as it is not likely she would write. But to these presumptions we may oppose the following considerations: 1. Though it be not difficult to counterfeit a subscription, it is very difficult, and almost impossible, to counterfeit several pages, so as to resemble exactly the handwriting of any person. These letters were examined and compared with Mary’s handwriting, by the English privy council, and by a great many of the nobility, among whom were several partisans of that princess. They might have been examined by the bishop of Ross, Herreis, and others of Mary’s commissioners. The regent must have expected that they would be very critically examined by them; and had they not been able to stand that test, he was only preparing a scene of confusion to himself. Bishop Lesley expressly declines the comparing of the hands, which he calls no legal proof. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 389. 2. The letters are very long, much longer than they needed to have been, in order to serve the purposes of Mary’s enemies; a circumstance which increased the difficulty, and exposed any forgery the more to the risk of a detection. 3. They are not so gross and palpable as forgeries commonly are, for they still left a pretext for Mary’s friends to assert that their meaning was strained to make them appear criminal. See Goodall, vol. ii. p. 361. 4. There is a long contract of marriage, said to be written by the earl of Huntley, and signed by the queen, before Bothwells acquittal. Would Morton, without any necessity, have thus doubled the difficulties of the forgery, and the danger of detection? 5. The letters are indiscreet; but such was apparently Mary’s conduct at that time. They are inelegant; but they have a careless, natural air, like letters hastily written between familiar friends. 6. They contain such a variety of particular circumstances as nobody could have thought of inventing, especially as they must necessarily have afforded her many means of detection. 7. We have not the originals of the letters, which were in French. We have only a Scotch and Latin translation from the original, and a French translation, professedly done from the Latin. Now it is remarkable that the Scotch translation is full of Gallicisms, and is clearly a translation from a French original; such as make fault, faire des fautes; make it seem that I believe, faire semblant de le croire; make brek, faire brèche; this is my first journey, c’est ma première journée; have you not desire to laugh? n’avez vous pas envie de rire; the place will hold unto the death, la place tiendra jusqu'à la mort; he may not come forth of the house this long time, il ne peut pas sortir du logis de long-tems; to make me advertisement, faire m’avertir; put order to it, metire ordre à cela; discharge your heart, décharger votre coeur; make gud watch, faites bonne garde, etc. 8. There is a conversation which she mentions between herself and the king one evening; but Murray produced before the English commissioners the testimony of one Crawford, a gentleman of the earl of Lenox, who swore that the king, on her departure from him, gave him an account of the same conversation. 9. There seems very little reason why Murray and his associates should run the risk of such a dangerous forgery, which must have rendered them infamous, if detected: since their cause, from Mary’s known conduct, even without these letters, was sufficiently good and justifiable. 10. Murray exposed these letters to the examination of persons qualified to judge of them: the Scotch council, the Scotch parliament, Queen Elizabeth and her council, who were possessed of a great number of Mary’s genuine letters. 11. He gave Mary herself an opportunity of refuting and exposing him, if she had chosen to lay hold of it. 12. The letters tally so well with all the other parts of her conduct during that transaction, that these proofs throw the strongest light on each other. 13. The duke of Norfolk, who had examined these papers, and who favored so much the queen of Scots, that he intended to marry her, and in the end lost his life in her cause, yet believed them authentic, and was fully convinced of her guilt. This appears, not only from his letters, above mentioned, to Queen Elizabeth and her ministers, but by his secret acknowledgment to Bannister, his most trusty confidant. See State Trials, vol. i. p. 81. In the conferences between the duke, Secretary Lidington, and the bishop of Ross, all of them zealous partisans of that princess, the same thing is always taken for granted. Ibid. p. 74, 75. See, further, MS. in the Advocates’ library, A. 3, 28, p. 314, from Cott. lib. Calig. c. 9. Indeed, the duke’s full persuasion of Mary’s guilt, without the least doubt or hesitation, could not have had place, if he had found Lidington or the bishop of Ross of a different opinion, or if they had ever told him that these letters were forged. It is to be remarked, that Lidington, being one of the accomplices, knew the whole bottom of the conspiracy against King Henry, and was, besides, a man of such penetration, that nothing could escape him in such interesting events. 14. I need not repeat the presumption drawn from Mary’s refusal to answer. The only excuse for her silence is, that she suspected Elizabeth to be a partial judge. It was not, indeed, the interest of that princess to acquit and justify her rival and competitor; and we accordingly find that Lidington, from the secret information of the Duke of Norfolk, informed Mary, by the bishop of Ross, that the queen of England never meant to come to a decision; but only to get into her hands the proofs of Mary’s guilt, in order to blast her character. See State Trials, vol. i p. 77. But this was a better reason for declining the conference altogether, than for breaking it off, on frivolous pretences, the very moment the chief accusation was unexpectedly opened against her. Though she could not expect Elizabeth’s final decision in her favor, it was of importance to give a satisfactory answer, if she had any, to the accusation of the Scotch commissioners. That answer could have been dispersed for the satisfaction of the public, of foreign nations, and of posterity. And surely after the accusation and proofs were in Queen Elizabeth’s hands, it could do no harm to give in the answers. Mary’s information, that the queen never intended to come to a decision, could be no obstacle to her justification. 15. The very disappearance of these letters is a presumption of their authenticity. That event can be accounted for no way but from the care of King James’s friends, who were desirous to destroy every proof of his mother’s crimes. The disappearance of Morton’s narrative, and of Crawford’s evidence, from the Cotton library, (Calig. c. I,) must have proceeded from a like cause. See MS. in the Advocates’ library, A. 3, 29, p. 88. I find an objection made to the authenticity of the letters, drawn from the vote of the Scotch privy council, which affirms the letters to be written and subscribed by Queen Mary’s own hand; whereas the copies given in to the parliament, a few days after, were only written, not subscribed. See Goodall, vol. ii. p. 64, 67. But it is not considered, that this circumstance is of no manner of force. There were certainly letters, true or false, laid before the council; and whether the letters were true or false, this mistake proceeds equally from the inaccuracy or blunder of the clerk. The mistake may be accounted for; the letters were only written by her; the second contract with Bothwell was only subscribed. A proper accurate distinction was not made; and they are all said to be written and subscribed. A late writer, Mr. Goodall, has endeavored to prove that these letters clash with chronology, and that the queen was not in the places mentioned in the letters on the days there assigned. To confirm this, he produces charters and other deeds signed by the queen, where the date and place do not agree with the letters. But it is well known, that the date of charters, and such like grants, is no proof of the real day on which they were signed by the sovereign. Papers of that kind commonly pass through different offices. The date is affixed by the first office, and may precede very long the day of the signature. The account given by Morton of the manner in which the papers came into his hands, is very natural. When he gave it to the English commissioners, he had reason to think it would be canvassed with all the severity of able adversaries, interested in the highest degree to refute it. It is probable, that he could have confirmed it by many circumstances and testimonies; since they declined the contest. The sonnets are inelegant; insomuch that both Brantome and Bonsard, who knew Queen Mary’s style, were assured, when they saw them, that they could not be of her composition. Jebb, voL ii p. 478. But no person is equal in his productions, especially one whose style is so little formed as Mary’s must be supposed to be. Not to mention, that such dangerous and criminal enterprises leave little tranquillity of mind for elegant poetical compositions. In a word, Queen Mary might easily have conducted the whole conspiracy against her husband, without opening her mind to any one person except Bothwell, and without writing a scrap of paper about it; but it was very difficult to have conducted it so that her conduct should not betray her to men of discernment. In the present case, her conduct was so gross as to betray her to every body; and fortune threw into her enemies’ hands papers by which they could convict her. The same infatuation and imprudence, which happily is the usual attendant of great crimes, will account for both. It is proper to observe, that there is not one circumstance of the foregoing narrative, contained in the history, that is taken from Knox, Buchanan, or even Thuanus, or indeed from any suspected authority.]

13 (return) [ NOTE M, p. 111. Unless we take this angry accusation, advanced by Queen Mary, to be an argument of Murray’s guilt, there remains not the least presumption which should lead us to suspect him to have been anywise an accomplice in the king’s murder. That queen never pretended to give any proof of the charge; and her commissioners affirmed at the time, that they themselves knew of none, though they were ready to maintain its truth by their mistress’s orders, and would produce such proof as she should send them. It is remarkable that, at that time, it was impossible for either her or them to produce any proof; because the conferences before the English commissioners were previously broken off. It is true, the bishop of Ross, in an angry pamphlet, written by him under a borrowed name, (where it is easy to say any thing,) affirms that Lord Herreis, a few days after the king’s death, charged Murray with the guilt, openly to his face, at his own table. This latter nobleman, as Lesley relates the matter, affirmed, that Murray, riding in Fife with one of his servants, the evening before the commission of that crime, said to him among other talk, “This night, ere morning, the Lord Darnley shall lose his life.” See Anderson, vol. i. p. 75. But this is only a hearsay of Lesley’s concerning a hearsay of Herreis’s, and contains a very improbable fact. Would Murray, without any use or necessity, communicate to a servant such a dangerous and important secret, merely by way of conversation;[**?] We may also observe, that Lord Herreis himself was one of Queen Mary’s commissioners, who accused Murray. Had he ever heard this story, or given credit to it, was not that the time to have produced it? and not have affirmed, as he did, that he, for his part, knew nothing of Murray’s guilt. See Goodall, vol. ii. p. 307. The earls of Huntley and Argyle accuse Murray of this crime; but the reason which they assign is ridiculous. He had given his consent to Mary’s divorce from the king; therefore he was the king’s murderer. See Anderson, vol. iv. part 2, p. 192. It is a sure argument, that these earls knew no better proof against Murray, otherwise they would have produced it, and not have insisted on so absurd a presumption. Was not this also the time for Huntley to deny his writing Mary’s contract with Bothwell, if that paper had been a forgery? Murray could have no motive to commit that crime. The king, indeed, bore him some ill will; but the king himself was become so despicable, both from his own ill conduct and the queen’s aversion to him, that he could neither do good nor harm to any body. To judge by the event, in any case, is always absurd; especially in the present. The king’s murder, indeed, procured Murray the regency; but much more Mary’s ill conduct and imprudence, which he could not possibly foresee, and which never would have happened, had she been entirely innocent.]

14 (return) [ NOTE N, p. 111. I believe there is no reader of common sense, who does not see, from the narrative in the text, that the author means to say, that Queen Mary refuses constantly to answer before the English commissioners, but offers only to answer in person before Queen Elizabeth in person, contrary to her practice during the whole course of the conference, till the moment the evidence of her being an accomplice in her husband’s murder is unexpectedly produced. It is true, the author, having repeated four or five times an account of this demand of being admitted to Elizabeth’s presence, and having expressed his opinion, that as it had been refused from the beginning, even before the commencement of the conferences, she did not expect it would now be complied with, thought it impossible his meaning could be misunderstood, (as indeed it was impossible;) and not being willing to tire his reader with continual repetitions, he mentions in a passage or two, simply, that she had refused to make any answer. I believe, also, there is no reader of common sense who peruses Anderson or Goodall’s collections, and does not see that, agreeably to this narrative, Queen Mary insists unalterably and strenuously on not continuing to answer before the English commissioners, but insists to be heard in person, by Queen Elizabeth in person; though once or twice, by way of bravado, she says simply, that she will answer and refute her enemies, without inserting this condition, which still is understood. But there is a person that has written an Inquiry, historical and critical, into the Evidence against Mary Queen of Scots, and has attempted to refute the foregoing narrative. He quotes a single passage of the narrative, in which Mary is said simply to refuse answering; and then a single passage from Goodall, in which she boasts simply that she will answer; and he very civilly, and almost directly, calls the author a liar, on account of this pretended contradiction. That whole Inquiry, from beginning to end, is composed of such scandalous artifices; and from this instance, the reader may judge of the candor, fair dealing, veracity, and good manners of the inquirer. There are indeed three events in our history, which may be regarded as touchstones of party-men. An English whig, who asserts the reality of the Popish plot, an Irish Catholic, who denies the massacre in 1641, and a Scotch Jacobite, who maintains the innocence of Queen Mary, must be considered as men beyond the reach of argument or reason, and must be left to their prejudices.]

15 (return) [ NOTE O, p. 129. By Murden’s state papers, published after the writing of this history, it appears that an agreement had been made between Elizabeth and the regent for the delivering up of Mary to him. The queen afterwards sent down Killigrew to the earl of Marre, when regent, offering to put Mary into his hands. Killigrew was instructed to take good security from the regent that that queen should be tried for her crimes, and that the sentence should be executed upon her. It appears that Marre rejected the offer, because we hear no more of it.]

16 (return) [ NOTE P, p. 130. Sir James Melvil (p. 108, 109) ascribes to Elizabeth a positive design of animating the Scotch factions against each other; but his evidence is too inconsiderable to counterbalance many other authorities, and is, indeed, contrary to her subsequent conduct, as well as her interest, and the necessity of her situation. It was plainly her interest that the king’s party should prevail, and nothing could have engaged her to stop their progress, or even forbear openly assisting them, but her intention of still amusing the queen of Scots, by the hopes of being peaceably restored to her throne. See, further Strype, vol. ii. Append. p. 20.]

17 (return) [ NOTE Q, p. 187. That the queen’s negotiations for marrying the duke of Anjou were not feigned nor political, appears clearly from many circumstances; particularly from a passage in Dr. Forbes’s manuscript collections, at present in the possession of Lord Royston. She there enjoins Walsingham, before he opens the treaty, to examine the person of the duke; and as that prince had lately recovered from the small-pox, she desires her ambassador to consider, whether he yet retained so much of his good looks, as that a woman could fix her affections on him. Had she not been in earnest, and had she only meant to amuse the public or the court of France, this circumstance was of no moment.]

18 (return) [ NOTE R, p. 203. D’Ewes, p. 328. The Puritanical sect had indeed gone so far, that a book of discipline was secretly subscribed by above five hundred clergymen; and the Presbyterian government thereby established in the midst of the church, notwithstanding the rigor of the prelates and of the high commission. So impossible is it by penal statutes, however severe, to suppress all religious innovation. See Neal’s Hist. of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 483. Strype’s Life of Whitgift, p. 291.]

19 (return) [ NOTE S, p. 205. This year, the earl of Northumberland, brother to the earl beheaded some years before, had been engaged in a conspiracy with Lord Paget for the deliverance of the queen of Scots. He was thrown into the Tower; and being conscious that his guilt could be proved upon him, at least that sentence would infallibly be pronounced against him, he freed himself from further prosecution by a voluntary death. He shot himself in the breast with a pistol. About the same time the earl of Arundel, son of the unfortunate duke of Norfolk, having entered into some exceptionable measures, and reflecting en the unhappy fate which had attended his family, endeavored to depart secretly beyond sea, but was discovered and thrown into the Tower. In 1587, this nobleman was brought to his trial for high treason; chiefly because he had dropped some expressions of affection to the Spaniards, and had affirmed that he would have masses said for the success of the armada. His peers found him guilty of treason. This severe sentence was not executed; but Arundel never recovered his liberty. He died a prisoner in 1595. He carried his religious austerities so far, that they were believed the immediate cause of his death.]

20 (return) [ NOTE T, p. 216. Mary’s extreme animosity against Elizabeth may easily be conceived, and it broke out about this tune in an incident which may appear curious. While the former queen was kept in custody by the earl of Shrewsbury, she lived during a long time in great intimacy with the countess; but that lady entertaining a jealousy of an amour between her and the earl, their friendship was converted into enmity; and Mary took a method of revenge, which at once gratified her spite against the countess and that against Elizabeth. She wrote to the queen, informing her of all the malicious, scandalous stories which, she said, the countess of Shrewsbury had reported of her: that Elizabeth had given a promise of marriage to a certain person, whom she afterwards often admitted to her bed: that she had been equally indulgent to Simier, the French agent, and to the duke of Anjou: that Hatton was also one of her paramours, who was even disgusted with her excessive love and fondness: that though she was on other occasions avaricious to the last degree, as well as ungrateful, and kind to very few, she spared no expense in gratifying her amorous passions: that notwithstanding her licentious amours, she was not made like other women; and all those who courted her in marriage would in the end be disappointed; that she was so conceited of her beauty, as to swallow the most extravagant flattery from her courtiers, who could not, on these occasions, forbear even sneering at her for her folly: that it was usual for them to tell her that the lustre of Her beauty dazzled them like that of the sun, and they could not behold it with a fixed eye. She added that the countess had said, that Mary’s best policy would be to engage her son to make love to the queen; nor was there any danger that such a proposal would be taken for mockery; so ridiculous was the opinion which she had entertained of her own charms. She pretended that the countess had represented her as no less odious in her temper than profligate in her manners, and absurd in her vanity: that she had so beaten a young woman of the name of Scudamore, as to break that lady’s finger; and in order to cover over the matter, it was pretended that the accident had proceeded from the fall of a candlestick: that she had cut another across the hand with a knife, who had been so unfortunate as to offend her. Mary added, that the countess had informed her, that Elizabeth had suborned Rolstone to pretend friendship to her, in order to debauch her, and thereby throw infamy on her rival. See Murden’s State Papers, p. 558. This imprudent and malicious letter was written a very little before the detection of Mary’s conspiracy; and contributed, no doubt, to render the proceedings against her the more rigorous. How far all these imputations against Elizabeth can be credited, may perhaps appear doubtful; but her extreme fondness for Leicester, Hatton, and Essex, not to mention Mountjoy and others, with the curious passages between her and Admiral Seymour, contained in Haynes, render her chastity very much to be suspected. Her self-conceit with regard to beauty, we know from other undoubted authority to have been extravagant. Even when she was a very old woman, she allowed her courtiers to flatter her with regard to her “excellent beauties.” Birch, vol. ii. p. 442, 443. Her passionate temper may also be proved from many lively instances; and it was not unusual with her to beat her maids of honor. See the Sidney Papers, vol. ii. p. 38. The blow she gave to Essex before the privy council is another instance. There remains in the Museum a letter of the earl of Huntingdon’s, in which he complains grievously of the queen’s pinching his wife very sorely, on account of some quarrel between them. Had this princess been born in a private station, she would not have been very amiable; but her absolute authority, at the same time that it gave an uncontrolling swing to her violent passions, enabled her to compensate her infirmities by many great and signal virtues.]

21 (return) [ NOTE U, p. 226. Camden, p. 525. This evidence was that of Curie, her secretary, whom she allowed to be a very honest man; and who, as well as Nau, had given proofs of his integrity, by keeping so long such important secrets, from whose discovery he could have reaped the greatest profit. Mary, after all, thought that she had so little reason to complain of Curie’s evidence, that she took care to have him paid a considerable sum by her will, which she wrote the day before her death. Goodall, vol. i. p. 413. Neither did she forget Nau, though less satisfied in other respects with his conduct. Id. ibid.]

24 (return) [ NOTE X, p. 226. The detail of this conspiracy is to be found in a letter of the queen of Scots to Charles Paget, her great confidant. This letter is dated the 20th of May, 1586, and is contained in Dr. Forbes’s manuscript collections, at present in the possession of Lord Royston. It is a copy attested by Curie, Mary’s secretary, and endorsed by Lord Burleigh. What proves its authenticity beyond question is, that we find in Murden’s Collection, (p. 516,) that Mary actually wrote that very day a letter to Charles Paget; and further she mentions, in the manuscript letter, a letter of Charles Paget’s of the 10th of April. Now we find by Murden, (p. 506,) that Charles Paget did actually write her a letter of that date. This violence of spirit is very consistent with Mary’s character. Her maternal affection was too weak to oppose the gratification of her passions, particularly her pride, her ambition, and her bigotry. Her son, having made some fruitless attempts to associate her with him in the title, and having found the scheme impracticable on account of the prejudices of his Protestant subjects, at last desisted from that design and entered into an alliance with England, without comprehending his mother. She was in such a rage at this undutiful behavior, as she imagined it, that she wrote to Queen Elizabeth, that she no longer cared what became of him or herself in the world; the greatest satisfaction she could have before her death, was, to see him and all his adherents become a signal example of tyranny, ingratitude and impiety, and undergo the vengeance of God for their wickedness. She would find in Christendom other heirs, and doubted not to put her inheritance in such hands as would retain the firmest hold of it. She cared not, after taking this revenge, what became of her body. The quickest death would then be the most agreeable to her. And she assured her that, if he persevered, she would disown him for her son, would give him her malediction, would disinherit him, as well of his present possessions as of all he could expect by her; abandoning him not only to her subjects to treat him as they had done her, but to all strangers to subdue and conquer him. It was in vain to employ menaces against her: the fear of death or other misfortune would never induce her to make one step or pronounce one syllable beyond what she had determined. She would rather perish with honor, in maintaining the dignity to which God had raised her, than degrade herself by the least pusillanimity, or act what was unworthy of her station and of her race. Murden, p. 566, 567. James said to Courcelles, the French ambassador, that he had seen a letter under her own hand, in which she threatened to disinherit him, and said that he might betake him to the lordship of Darnley; for that was all he had by his father. Courcelles’ Letter, a MS. of Dr. Campbell’s. There is in Jebb (vol. ii. p. 573) a letter of hers, where she throws out the same menace against him. We find this scheme of seizing the king of Scots, and delivering him into the hands of the pope or the king of Spain, proposed by Morgan to Mary. See Murden, p. 525. A mother must be very violent to whom one would dare to make such a proposal; but it seems she assented to it. Was not such a woman very capable of murdering her husband, who had so grievously offended her?]

25 (return) [ NOTE Y, p. 227. The volume of state papers collected by Murden, prove, beyond controversy, that Mary was long in close correspondence with Babington, (p. 513, 516, 532, 533.) She entertained a like correspondence with Ballard, Morgan, and Charles Paget, and laid a scheme with them for an insurrection, and for the invasion of England by Spain (p. 528,531.) The same papers show, that there had been a discontinuance of Babington’s correspondence, agreeably to Camden’s narration. See Slate Papers, (p. 513,) where Morgan recommends it to Queen Mary to renew her correspondence with Babington. These circumstances prove, that no weight can be laid on Mary’s denial of guilt, and that her correspondence with Babington contained particulars which could not be avowed.]

26 (return) [ NOTE Z, p. 227. There are three suppositions by which the letter to Babington may be accounted for, without allowing Mary’s concurrence in the conspiracy for assassinating Elizabeth. The first is, that which she seems herself to have embraced, that her secretaries had received Babington’s letter, and had, without any treacherous intention, ventured of themselves to answer it, and had never communicated the matter to her. But it is utterly improbable, if not impossible, that a princess of so much sense and spirit should, in an affair of that importance, be so treated by her servants who lived in the house with her, and who had every moment an opportunity of communicating the secret to her. If the conspiracy failed, they must expect to suffer the severest punishment from the court of England; if it succeeded, the lightest punishment which they could hope for from their own mistress, must be disgrace, on account of their temerity. Not to mention, that Mary’s concurrence was in some degree requisite for effecting the design of her escape. It was proposed to attack her guards while she was employed in hunting; she must therefore concert the time and place with the conspirators. The second supposition is, that these two secretaries were previously traitors; and being gained by Walsingham, had made such a reply in their mistress’s cipher, as might involve her in the guilt of the conspiracy. But these two men had lived long with the queen of Scots, had been entirely trusted by her, and had never fallen under suspicion either with her or her partisans. Camden informs us, that Curle afterwards claimed a reward from Walsingham, on pretence of some promise; but Walsingham told him that he owed him no reward, and that he had made no discoveries on his examination which were not known with certainty from other quarters. The third supposition is, that neither the queen nor the two secretaries, Nau and Curle, ever saw Babington’s letter, or made any answer; but that Walsingham, having deciphered the former, forged a reply. But this supposition implies the falsehood of the whole story, told by Camden, of Gifford’s access to the queen of Scots’ family, and Paulet’s refusal to concur in allowing his servants to be bribed. Not to mention, that as Nau’s and Curle’s evidence must, on this supposition, have been extorted by violence and terror, they would necessarily have been engaged, for their own justification, to have told the truth afterwards; especially upon the accession of James. But Camden informs us, that Nau, even after that event, persisted still in his testimony. We must also consider, that the two last suppositions imply such a monstrous criminal conduct in Walsingham, and consequently in Elizabeth, (for the matter could be no secret to her,) as exceeds all credibility. If we consider the situation of things, and the prejudices of the times, Mary’s consent to Babington’s conspiracy appears much more natural and probable. She believed Elizabeth to be a usurper and a heretic. She regarded her as a personal and a violent enemy. She knew that schemes for assassinating heretics were very familiar in that age, and generally approved of by the court of Rome and the zealous Catholics. Her own liberty and sovereignty were connected with the success of this enterprise; and it cannot appear strange, that where men of so much merit as Babington could be engaged by bigotry alone in so criminal an enterprise, Mary, who was actuated by the same motive, joined to so many others, should have given her consent to a scheme projected by her friends. We may be previously certain, that if such a scheme was ever communicated to her, with any probability of success, she would assent to it; and it served the purpose of Walsingham and the English ministry to facilitate the communication of these schemes, as soon as they had gotten an expedient for intercepting her answer, and detecting the conspiracy. Now, Walsingham’s knowledge of the matter is a supposition necessary to account for the letter delivered to Babington. As to the not punishing of Nau and Curle by Elizabeth, it never is the practice to punish lesser criminals, who had given evidence against the principal. But what ought to induce us to reject these three suppositions is, that they must all of them be considered as bare possibilities. The partisans of Mary can give no reason for preferring one to the other. Not the slightest evidence ever appeared to support any one of them. Neither at that time, nor at any time afterwards, was any reason discovered, by the numerous zealots at home and abroad who had embraced Mary’s defence, to lead us to the belief of any of these three suppositions; and even her apologists at present seem not to have fixed on any choice among these supposed possibilities. The positive proof of two very credible witnesses, supported by the other very strong circumstances, still remains unimpeached. Babington, who had an extreme interest to have communication with the queen of Scots, believed he had found a means of correspondence with her, and had received an answer from her. He, as well as the other conspirators, died in that belief. There has not occurred, since that time, the least argument to prove that they were mistaken; can there be any reason at present to doubt the truth of their opinion? Camden, though a professed apologist for Mary, is constrained to tell the story in such a manner as evidently supposes her guilt. Such was the impossibility of finding any other consistent account, even by a man of parts, who was a contemporary! In this light might the question have appeared even during Mary’s trial. But what now puts her guilt beyond all controversy is the following passage of her letter to Thomas Morgan, dated the 27th of July, 1586: “As to Babington, he hath both kindly and honestly offered himself and all his means to be employed any way I would; whereupon I hope to have satisfied him by two of my several letters since I had his; and the rather for that I opened him the way, thereby I received his with your aforesaid.” Murden, p. 533. Babington confessed that he had offered her to assassinate the queen. It appears by this that she had accepted the offer; so that all the suppositions of Walsingham’s forgery, or the temerity or treachery of her secretaries, fall to the ground.]

27 (return) [ NOTE AA, p 231 This parliament granted the queen a supply of a subsidy and two fifteenths. They adjourned, and met again after the execution of the queen of Scots; when there passed some remarkable incidents, which it may be proper not to omit. We shall give them in the words of Sir Simon D’Ewes, (p. 410, 411,) which are almost wholly transcribed from Townshend’s Journal. On Monday, the 27th of February, Mr. Cope, first using some speeches touching the necessity of a learned ministry, and the amendment of things amiss in the ecclesiastical estate, offered to the house a bill and a book written; the bill containing a petition, that it might be enacted, that all laws now in force touching ecclesiastical government should be void; and that it might be enacted, that the Book of Common Prayer now offered, and none other, might be received into the church to be used. The book contained the form of prayer and administration of the sacraments, with divers rites and ceremonies to be used in the church; and he desired that the book might be read. Whereupon Mr. Speaker in effect used this speech: For that her majesty before this time had commanded the house not to meddle with this matter, and that her majesty had promised to take order in those causes, he doubted not but to the good satisfaction of all her people, he desired that it would please them to spare the reading of it. Notwithstanding the house desired the reading of it. Whereupon Mr. Speaker desired the clerk to read. And the court being ready to read it, Mr. Dalton made a motion against the reading of it, saying, that it was not meet to be read, and it did appoint a new form of administration of the sacraments and ceremonies of the church, to the discredit of the Book of Common Prayer and of the whole state; and thought that this dealing would bring her majesty’s indignation against the house, thus to enterprise this dealing with those things which her majesty especially had taken into her own charge and direction. Whereupon Mr. Lewkenor spake, showing the necessity of preaching and of a learned ministry, and thought it very fit that the petition and book should be read. To this purpose spake Mr. Hurleston and Mr. Bainbrigg; and so, the time being passed, the house broke up, and neither the petition nor book read. This done, her majesty sent to Mr. Speaker, as well for this petition and book, as for that other petition and book for the like effect, that was delivered the last session of parliament, which Mr. Speaker sent to her majesty. On Tuesday, the 28th of February, her majesty sent for Mr. Speaker, by occasion whereof the house did not sit. On Wednesday, the first of March, Mr. Wentworth delivered to Mr. Speaker certain articles, which contained questions touching the liberties of the house, and to some of which he was to answer, and desired they might be read. Mr. Speaker desired him to spare his motion until her majesty’s pleasure was further known touching the petition and book lately delivered into the house; but Mr. Wentworth would not be so satisfied, but required his articles might be read. Mr. Wentworth introduced his queries by lamenting that he, as well as many others, were deterred from speaking by their want of knowledge and experience in the liberties of the house; and the queries were as follows: Whether this council were not a place for any member of the same here assembled, freely and without controlment of any person or danger of laws, by bill or speech to utter any of the griefs of this commonwealth whatsoever, touching the service of God, the safety of the prince, and this noble realm? Whether that great honor may be done unto God, and benefit and service unto the prince and state, without free speech in this council that may be done with it? Whether there be any council which can make, add, or diminish from the laws of the realm, but only this council of parliament? Whether it be not against the orders of this council to make any secret or matter of weight, which is here in hand, known to the prince or any other, concerning the high service of God, prince, or state without the consent of the house? Whether the speaker or any other may interrupt any member of this council in his speech used in this house tending to any of the forenamed services? Whether the speaker may rise when he will, any matter being propounded, without consent of the house or not? Whether the speaker may overrule the house in any matter or cause there in question, or whether he is to be ruled or overruled in any matter or not? Whether the prince and state can continue, and stand, and be maintained, without this council of parliament, not altering the government of the state? At the end of these questions, says Sir Simon D’Ewes, I found set down this short memorial ensuing; by which it may be perceived both what Serjeant Puckering, the speaker, did with the said questions after he had received them, and what became also of this business, viz.: “These questions Mr. Puckering pocketed up, and showed Sir Thomas Henage, who so handled the matter, that Mr. Wentworth went to the Tower, and the questions not at all moved. Mr. Buckler of Essex herein brake his faith in forsaking the matter, etc., and no more was done.” After setting down, continues Sir Simon D’Ewes, the said business of Mr. Wentworth in the original journal book, there follows only this short conclusion of the day itself, viz.: “This day, Mr. Speaker being sent for to the queen’s majesty, the house departed.” On Thursday, the 2d of March, Mr. Cope, Mr. Lewkenor, Mr. Hurleston, and Mr. Bainbrigg were sent for to my lord chancellor and by divers of the privy council, and from thence were sent to the Tower. On Saturday the 4th day of March, Sir John Higham made a motion to this house, for that divers good and necessary members thereof were taken from them, that it would please them to be humble petitioners to her majesty for the restitution of them again to this house. To which speeches Mr. Vice-chamberlain answered, that if the gentlemen were committed for matter within the compass of the privilege of the house, then there might be a petition; but if not, then we should give occasion to her majesty’s further displeasure; and therefore advised to stay until they heard more, which could not be long. And further, he said, touching the book and the petition, her majesty had, for divers good causes best known to herself, thought fit to suppress the same, without any further examination thereof; and yet thought it very unfit for her majesty to give any account of her doings. But whatsoever Mr. Vice-chamberlain pretended, it is most probable these members were committed for intermeddling with matters touching the church, which her majesty had often inhibited, and which had caused so much disputation and so many meetings between the two houses the last parliament. This is all we find of the matter in Sir Simon D’Ewes and Townshend; and it appears that those members who had been committed, were detained in custody till the queen thought proper to release them. These questions of Mr. Wentworth are curious; because they contain some faint dawn of the present English constitution, though suddenly eclipsed by the arbitrary government of Elizabeth. Wentworth was indeed by his Puritanism, as well as his love of liberty, (for these two characters, of such unequal merit, arose and advanced together,) the true forerunner of the Hambdens, the Pyms, and the Hollises, who in the next age, with less courage, because with less danger, rendered their principles so triumphant. I shall only ask, whether it be not sufficiently clear from all these transactions, that in the two succeeding reigns it was the people who encroached upon the sovereign, not the sovereign who attempted, as is pretended, to usurp upon the people?]

28 (return) [ NOTE BB, p. 259. The queen’s speech in the camp of Tilbury was in these words. “My loving people, we have been persuaded, by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes for fear of treachery; but assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear: I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good will of my subjects. And therefore I am come amongst you at this time, not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved in the midst and heat of the battle to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honor and my blood; even in the dust. I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England too; and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms; to which rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms. I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant-general shall be in my stead; than whom never prince commanded a more noble and worthy subject; not doubting, by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valor in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.”]

29 (return) [ NOTE CC, p. 264. Strype, vol. iii. p. 525. On the 4th of September, boon after the dispersion of the Spanish armada, died the earl of Leicester, the queen’s great but unworthy favorite. Her affection for him continued to the last. He had discovered no conduct in any of his military enterprises, and was suspected of cowardice; yet she intrusted him with the command of her armies during the danger of the Spanish invasion; a partiality which might have proved fatal to her, had the duke of Parma been able to land his troops in England. She had even ordered a commission to be drawn for him, constituting him her lieutenant, in the kingdoms of England and Ireland; but Burleigh and Hatton represented to her the danger of intrusting such unlimited authority in the hands of any subject, and prevented the execution of that design. No wonder that a conduct so unlike the usual jealousy of Elizabeth, gave reason to suspect that her partiality was founded on some other passion than friendship. But Elizabeth seemed to carry her affection to Leicester no farther than the grave; she ordered his goods to be disposed of at a public sale, in order to reimburse herself of some debt which he owed her; and her usual attention to money was observed to prevail over her regard to the memory of the deceased. This earl was a great hypocrite, a pretender to the strictest religion, an encourager of the Puritans, and founder of hospitals.]

30 (return) [ NOTE DD, p. 264. Strype, vol. iii. p. 542. Id. append, p. 239. There are some singular passages in this last speech, which may be worth taking notice of, especially as they came from a member who was no courtier; for he argues against the subsidy. “And first,” says he, “for the necessity thereof, I cannot deny, but if it were a charge imposed upon us by her majesty’s commandment, or a demand proceeding from her majesty by way of request, that I think there is not one among us all, either so disobedient a subject in regard of our duty, or so unthankful a man in respect of the inestimable benefits which by her or from her we have received, which would not with frank consent, both of voice and heart, most willingly submit himself thereunto, without any unreverend inquiry into the causes thereof. For it is continually in the mouth of us all, that our lands, goods, and lives, are at our prince’s disposing. And it agreeth very well with that position of the civil law, which sayeth, ‘Quod omnia regis aunt,’ But how? ‘Ita tamen ut omnium sint. Ad regem enim potestas omnium pertinet; ad singulos proprietas.’ So that although it be most true that her majesty hath over ourselves and our goods ‘potestatem imperandi,’ yet it is true, that until that power command, (which, no doubt, will not command without very just cause,) every subject hath his own ‘proprietatem possidendi.’ Which power and commandment from her majesty, which we have not yet received, I take it, (saving reformation,) that we are freed from the cause of necessity. And the cause of necessity is the dangerous estate of the commonwealth,” etc. The tenor of the speech pleads rather for a general benevolence than a subsidy; for the law of Richard III. against benevolence was nevei conceived to have any force. The member even proceeds to assert, with some precaution, that it was in the power of parliament to refuse the king’s demand of a subsidy; and that there was an instance of that liberty in Heary III.‘s time near four hundred years before. Sub Fine.]

31 (return) [ NOTE EE, p. 266 We may judge of the extent and importance of these abuses by a speech of Bacon’s against purveyors, delivered in the first session of the first parliament of the subsequent reign, by which also we may learn that Elizabeth had given no redress to the grievances complained of. “First,” says he, “they take in kind what they ought not to take; secondly, they take in quantity a far greater proportion than cometh to your majesty’s use; thirdly, they take in an unlawful manner, in a manner, I say, directly and expressly prohibited by the several laws. For the first, I am a little to alter their name; for in stead of takers, they become taxers. Instead of taking provisions for your majesty’s service, they tax your people ‘ad redimendam vexationem;’ imposing upon them and extorting from them divers sums of money, sometimes in gross, sometimes in the nature of stipends annually paid, ‘ne noceant,’ to be freed and eased of their oppression Again, they take trees, which by law they cannot do; timber trees which are the beauty, countenance, and shelter of men’s houses; that men have long spared from their own purse and profit; that men esteem for their use and delight, above ten times the value; that are a loss which men cannot repair or recover. These do they take, to the defacing and spoiling of your subjects’ mansions and dwellings, except they may be compounded with to their own appetites. And if a gentleman be too hard for them while he is at home, they will watch their time when there is but a bailiff or a servant remaining, and put the axe to the root of the tree, ere even the master can stop it. Again, they use a strange and most unjust exaction in causing the subjects to pay poundage of their own debts, due from your majesty unto them; so as a poor man, when he has had his hay, or his wood, or his poultry (which perchance he was full loath to part with, and had for the provision of his own family, and not to put to sale) taken from him, and that not at a just price, but under the value, and cometh to receive his money, he shall have after the rate of twelve pence in the pound abated for poundage of his due payment upon so hard conditions. Nay, further, they are grown to that extremity, (as is affirmed, though it be scarce credible, save that in such persons all things are credible,) that they will take double poundage once when the debenture is made, and again the second time when the money is paid. For the second point, most gracious sovereign, touching the quantity which they take far above that which is answered to your majesty’s use; it is affirmed unto me by divers gentlemen of good report, as a matter which I may safely avouch unto your majesty, that there is no pound profit which redoundeth unto your majesty in this course, but induceth and begetteth three pound damage upon your subjects, beside the discontentment. And to the end they may make their spoil more securely, what do they? Whereas divers statutes do strictly provide, that whatsoever they take shall De registered and attested, to the end that by making a collation of that which is taken from the country and that which is answered above, their deceits might appear, they, to the end, to obscure their deceits, utterly omit the observation of this, which the law prescribeth. And therefore to descend, if it may please your majesty, to the third sort of abuse, which is of the unlawful manner of their taking, whereof this question is a branch; it is so manifold, as it rather asketh an enumeration of some of the particulars than a prosecution of all. For their price, by law they ought to take as they can agree with the subject; by abuse, they take at an imposed and enforced price. By law they ought to take but one apprizement by neighbors in the country; by abuse, they make a second apprizement at the court gate; and when the subjects’ cattle come up many miles, lean and out of plight by reason of their travel, then they prize them anew at an abated price. By law, they ought to take between sun and sun; by abuse, they take by twilight and in the night time, a time well chosen for malefactors. By law, they ought not to take in the highways, (a place by her majesty’s high prerogative protected, and by statute by special words excepted;) by abuse, they take in the highways. By law, they ought to show their commission, etc. A number of other particulars there are,” etc. Bacon’s Works, vol. iv. p. 305, 306. Such were the abuses which Elizabeth would neither permit her parliaments to meddle with, nor redress herself. I believe it will readily be allowed, that this slight prerogative alone, which has passed almost unobserved amidst other branches of so much greater importance, was sufficient to extinguish all regular liberty. For what elector, or member of parliament, or even juryman, durst oppose the will of the court, while he lay under the lash of such an arbitrary prerogative? For a further account of the grievous and incredible oppressions of purveyors, see the Journals of the house of commons, vol. i. p. 190. There is a story of a carter, which may be worth mentioning on this occasion. “A carter had three times been at Windsor with his cart, to carry away, upon summons of a remove, some part of the stuff of her majesty’s wardrobe; and when he had repaired thither once, twice, and the third time, and that they of the wardrobe had told him the third time, that the remove held not, the carter, slapping his hand on his thigh, said, ‘Now I see that the queen is a woman as well as my wife;’ which words being overheard by her majesty, who then stood at the window, she said, ‘What a villain is this?’ and so sent him three angels to stop his mouth.” Birch’s Memoirs, vol. i. p. 155.]

32 (return) [ NOTE FF, p. 274. This year, the nation suffered a great loss, by the death of Sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state; a man equally celebrated for his abilities and his integrity. He had passed through many employments, had been very frugal in his expense, yet died so poor, that his family was obliged to give him a private burial. He left only one daughter, first married to Sir Philip Sidney, then to the earl of Essex, favorite of Queen Elizabeth, and lastly to the earl of Clanriearde of Ireland. The same year died Thomas Randolph, who had been employed by the queen in several embassies to Scotland; as did also the earl of Warwick, elder brother to Leicester.]

33 (return) [ NOTE GO, p. 276. This action of Sir Richard Greenville is so singular as to merit a more particular relation. He was engaged alone with the whole Spanish fleet of fifty-three sail, which had ten thousand men on board; and from the time the fight began, which was about three in the afternoon, to the break of day next morning, he repulsed the enemy fifteen times, though they continually shifted their vessels, and hoarded with fresh men. In the beginning of the action he himself received a wound; but he continued doing his duty above deck till eleven at night, when receiving a fresh wound, he was carried down to be dressed. During this operation, he received a shot in the head, and the surgeon was killed by his side. The English began now to want powder. All their small arms were broken or become useless. Of their number, which were but a hundred and three at first, forty were killed, and almost all the rest wounded. Their masts were beat overboard, their tackle cut in pieces, and nothing but a hulk left, unable to move one way or other. In this situation, Sir Richard proposed to the ship’s company, to trust to the mercy of God, not to that of the Spaniards, and to destroy the ship with themselves, rather than yield to the enemy. The master gunner, and many of the seamen, agreed to this desperate resolution; but others opposed it and obliged Greenville to surrender himself prisoner. He died a few days after; and his last words were, “Here die I, Richard Greenville, with a joyful and quiet mind; for that I have ended my life as a true soldier ought to do, fighting for his country, queen, religion, and honor; my soul willingly departing from this body, leaving behind the lasting fame of having behaved as every valiant soldier is in his duty bound to do.” The Spaniards lost in this sharp, though unequal action, four ships, and about a thousand men; and Greenville’s vessel perished soon after, with two hundred Spaniards in her. Hacklyt’s Voyages, vol. iii. part 2, p. 169. Camden, p. 565.]

34 (return) [ NOTE HH, p. 294. It is usual for the speaker to disqualify himself for the office; but the reasons employed by this speaker are so singular that they may be worth transcribing. “My estate,” said he, “is nothing correspondent for the maintenance of this dignity, for my father dying left me a younger brother, and nothing to me but my bare annuity. Then growing to man’s estate, and some small practice of the law, I took a wife, by whom I have had many children; the keeping of us all being a great impoverishing to my estate, and the daily living of us all nothing but my daily industry. Neither from my person not my nature doth this choice arise; for he that supplieth this place ought to be a man big and comely, stately and well-spoken, his voice great, his carriage majestical, his nature haughty, and his purse plentiful and heavy: but contrarily, the stature of my body is small, myself not so well spoken, my voice low, my carriage lawyer-like, and of the common fashion, my nature soft and bashful, my purse thin, light, and never yet plentiful. If Demosthenes, being so learned and eloquent as he was, one whom none surpassed, trembled to speak before Phocion at Athens, how much more shall I, being unlearned and unskilful to supply the place of dignity, charge, and trouble, to speak before so many Phocions as here be? yea, which is the greatest, before the unspeakable majesty and sacred personage of our dread and dear sovereign; the terror of whose countenance will appal and abase even the stoutest hearts; yea, whose very name will pull down the greatest courage? for how mightily do the estate and name of a prince deject the haughtiest stomach even of their greatest subjects? D’Ewes, p. 459.]

35 (return) [ NOTE II, p. 299. Cabala, p. 234. Birch’s Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 386. Speed, p. 877 The whole letter of Essex is so curious and so spirited, that the reader may not be displeased to read it. “My very good lord Though there is not that man this day living, whom I would sooner make judge of any question that might concern me than yourself, yet you must give me leave to tell you, that in some cases I must appeal from all earthly judges; and if any, then surely in this, when the highest judge on earth has imposed on me the heaviest punishment, without trial or hearing. Since then I must either answer your lord-ship’s argument, or else forsake mine own just defence, I will force, mine aching head to do me service for an hour. I must first deny my discontent, which was forced, to be a humorous discontent; and that it was unseasonable, or is of so long continuing, your lordship should rather condole with me than expostulate. Natural seasons are expected here below; but violent and unseasonable storms come from above. There is no tempest equal to the passionate indignation of a prince; nor yet at any time so unseasonable, as when it lighteth on those that might expect a harvest of their careful and painful labors. He that is once wounded must needs feel smart, till his hurt is cured, or the part hurt become senseless. But cure I expect none, her majesty’s heart being obdurate against me; and be without sense I cannot, being of flesh and blood. But, say you, I may aim at the end. I do more than aim; for I see an end of all my fortunes, I have set an end to all my desires. In this course do I any thing for my enemies? When I was at court, I found them absolute; and therefore I had rather they should triumph alone, than have me attendant upon their chariots. Or do I leave my friends? When I was a courtier, I could yield them no fruit of my love unto them; and now that I am a hermit, they shall bear no envy for their love towards me. Or do I forsake myself because I do enjoy myself? Or do I overthrow my fortunes, because I build not a fortune of paper walls, which every puff of wind bloweth down? Or do I ruinate mine honor, because I leave following the pursuit, or wearing the false badge or mark of the shadow of honor? Do I give courage or comfort to the foreign foe, because I reserve myself to encounter with him? or because I keep my heart from business, though I cannot keep my fortune from declining? No, no, my good lord; I give every one of these considerations its due weight; and the more I weigh them, the more I find myself justified from offending in any of them. As for the two last objections, that I forsake my country when it hath most need of me, and fail in that indissoluble duty which I owe to my sovereign, I answer, that if my country had at this time any need of my public service, her majesty, that governeth it, would not have driven me to a private life. I am tied to my country by two bonds; One public, to discharge carefully and industriously that trust which is committed to me; the other private, to sacrifice for it my life and carcass, which hath been nourished in it Of the first I am free, being dismissed, discharged, and disabled by her majesty. Of the other, nothing can free me but death; and, therefore, no occasion of my performance shall sooner offer itself but I shall meet it half way. The indissoluble duty which I owe unto her majesty is only the duty of allegiance, which Imnever have nor never can fail in. The duty of attendance is no indissoluble duty. I owe her majesty the duty of an earl, and of lord marshal of England. I have been content to do her majesty the service of a clerk; but I can never serve her as a villain of slave. But yet you say I must give way unto the time. So I do; for now that I see the storm come, I have put myself into the harbor. Seneca saith, we must give way to fortune. I know that fortune is both blind and strong, and therefore I go as far as I can out of her way. You say the remedy is not to strive. I neither strive nor seek for remedy. But you say I must yield and submit. I can neither yield myself to be guilty, nor allow the imputation laid upon me to be just. I owe so much to the Author of all truth, as I can never yield truth to be falsehood, nor falsehood to be truth. Have I given cause, you ask, and yet take a scandal when I have done? No. I gave no cause, not so much as Fimbria’s complaint against me; for I did ‘totum telum corpore recipere,’ receive the whole sword into my body. I patiently bear all, and sensibly feel all that I then received when this scandal was given me. Nay, more, when the vilest of all indignities are done unto me,” etc. This noble letter, Bacon afterwards, in pleading against Essex, called bold and presumptuous, and derogatory to her majesty. Birch’s Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 338.]

37 (return) [ NOTE KK, P. 321. Most of Queen Elizabeth’s courtiers feigned love and desire towards her, and addressed themselves to her in the style of passion and gallantry. Sir Walter Raleigh, having fallen into disgrace, wrote the following letter to his friend, Sir Robert Cecil, with a view, no doubt, of having it shown to the queen. “My heart was never broke till this day, that I hear the queen goes away so far off, whom I have followed so many years, with so great love and desire in so many journeys, and am now left behind here in a dark prison all alone. While she was yet near at hand, that I might hear of her once in two or three days, my sorrows were the less; but even now, my heart it cast into the depth of all misery. I, that was wont to behold her riding like Alexander, hunting like Diana, walking like Venus, the gentle wind blowing her fair hair about her pure cheeks, like a nymph, sometimes sitting in the shade like a goddess, sometimes singing like an angel, sometimes playing like Orpheus; behold the sorrow of this world! once amiss hath bereaved me of all. O glory, that only sdineth in misfortune, what is become of thy assurance? All wounds have scars but that of fantasy: all affections their relenting but that of womankind. Who is the judge of friendship but adversity, only when is grace witnessed but in offences? There were no divinity but by reason of compassion; for revenges are brutish and mortal. All those times past, the loves, the sighs, the sorrows, the desires, cannot they weigh down one frail misfortune? Cannot one drop of gall be hid in so great heaps of sweetness? I may then conclude, ‘Spes et fortuna, valete.’ She is gone in whom I trusted; and of me hath not one thought of mercy, nor any respect of that which was Do with me now, therefore, what you list. I am more weary of life than they are desirous I should perish; which, if it had been for her, as it is by her, I had been too happily born.” Murden, 657. It is to be remarked, that this nymph, Venus, goddess, angel, was then about sixty. Yet five or six years after, she allowed the same language to be held to her. Sir Henry Unton, her ambassador in France, relates to her a conversation which he had with Henry IV. That monarch, after having introduced Unton to his mistress, the fair Gabrielle, asked him how he liked her. “I answered sparingly in her praise,” said the minister, “and told him, that if, without offence, I might speak it, I had the picture of a far more excellent mistress, and yet did her picture come far short of her perfection of beauty. As you love me, said he, show it me, if you have it about you. I made some difficulties; yet, upon his importunity, offered it to his view very secretly, holding it still in my hand. He beheld it with passion and admiration, saying, that I had reason, ‘Je me rends,’ protesting that he had never seen the like; so, with great reverence, he kissed it twice or thrice, I detaining it still in my hand. In the end, with some kind of contention, he took it from me, vowing that I might take my leave of it; for he would not forego it for any treasure; and that to possess the favor of the lovely picture, he would forsake all the world, and hold himself most happy; with many other most passionate speeches.” Murden, p. 718. For further particulars on this head, see the ingenious author of the Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors, article Essex.]

38 (return) [ NOTE LL, P. 337. It may not be amiss to subjoin some passages of these speeches; which may serve to give us a just idea of the government of that age, and of the political principles which prevailed during the reign of Elizabeth. Mr. Laurence Hyde proposed a bill, entitled, An act for the explanation of the common law in certain cases of letters patent. Mr. Spicer said, “This bill may touch the prerogative royal, which, as I learned the last parliament, is so transcendent, that the———of the subject may not aspire thereunto. Far be it therefore from me that the state and prerogative royal of the prince should be tied by me, or by the act of any other subject.” Mr. Francis Bacon said, “As to the prerogative royal of the prince, for my own part, I ever allowed of it; and it is such as I hope will never be discussed. The queen, as she is our sovereign, hath both an enlarging and restraining power. For by her prerogative she may set at liberty things restrained by statute, law, or otherwise; and secondly, by her prerogative she may restrain things which be at liberty. For the first, she may grant a ‘non obstante’ contrary to the penal laws. With regard to monopolies and such like cases, the case hath ever been to humble ourselves onto her majesty, and by petition desire to have our grievances remedied, especially when the remedy touched her so nigh in point of prerogative. I say, and I say it again, that we ought not to deal, to judge or meddle with her majesty’s prerogative. I wish, therefore, every man to be careful of this business.” Dr. Bennet said, “He that goeth about to debate her majesty’s prerogative had need to walk warily.” Mr. Laurence Hyde said, “For the bill itself, I made it, and I think I understand it; and far be it from this heart of mine to think, this tongue to speak, or this hand to write any thing either in prejudice or derogation of her majesty’s prerogative royal and the state.” “Mr. Speaker,” quoth Serjeant Harris, “for aught I see, the house moveth to have this bill in the nature of a petition. It must then begin with more humiliation. And truly, sir, the bill is good of itself, but the penning of it is somewhat out of course.” Mr. Montague said, “The matter is good and honest, and I like this manner of proceeding by bill well enough in this matter. The grievances are great, and I would only unto you thus much, that the last parliament we proceeded by way of petition, which had no successful effect.” Mr. Francis More said, “I know the queen’s prerogative is a thing curious to be dealt withal; yet all grievances are not comparable. I cannot utter with my tongue, or conceive with my heart, the great grievances that: the town and country, for which I serve, suffereth by some of these monopolies. It bringeth the general profit into a private hand, and the end of all this is beggary and bondage to the subjects. We have a law for the true and faithful currying of leather. There is a patent sets all at liberty, notwithstanding that statute. And to what purpose is it to do any thing by act of parliament, when the queen will undo the same by her prerogative? Out of the spirit of humiliation, Mr. Speaker, I do speak it, there is no act of hers that hath been or is mores derogatory to her own majesty, more odious to the subject, more dangerous to the commonwealth, than the granting of these monopolies.” Mr. Martin said, “I do speak for a town that grieves and pines, tor a country that groaneth and languisheth, under the burden of monstrous and unconscionable substitutes to the monopolitans of starch, tin, fish, cloth, oil, vinegar, salt, and I know not what; nay, what not? The principalest commodities, both of my town and country, are engrossed into the hands of these bloodsuckers of the commonwealth. If a body, Mr. Speaker, being let blood, be left still languishing without any remedy, how can the good estate of that body still remain? Such is the state of my town and country; the traffic is taken away, the inward and private commodities are taken away, and dare not be used without the license of these monopolitans. If these bloodsuckers be still let alone to suck up the best and principalest commodities which the earth there hath given us, what will become of us, from whom the fruits of our own soil, and the commodities of our own labor, which, with the sweat of our brows, even up to the knees in mire and dirt, we have labored for, shall be taken by warrant of supreme authority, which the poor subject dare not gainsay?” Mr. George Moore said, “We know the power of her majesty cannot be restrained by any act. Why, wherefore, should we thus talk s Admit we should make this statute with a non obstante; yet the queen may grant a patent with a non obstante to cross this non obstante. I think, therefore, it agreeth more with the gravity and wisdom of this house, to proceed with all humbleness by petition than bill.” Mr. Downland said, “As I would be no let or over-vehement in any thing, so I am not sottish or senseless of the common grievance of the commonwealth. If we proceed by way of petition, we can have no more gracious answer then we had the last parliament to our petition. But since that parliament, we have no reformation.” Sir Robert Wroth said, “I speak, and I speak it boldly, these patentees are worse than ever they were.” Mr. Hayward Townsend proposed, that they should make suit to her majesty, not only to repeal all monopolies grievous to the subject, but also that it would please her majesty to give the parliament leave to make an act that they might be of no more force, validity, or effect, than they are at the common law, without the strength of her prerogative. Which though we might now do, and the act being so reasonable, we might assure ourselves her majesty would not delay the passing thereof, yet we, her loving subjects, etc., would not offer without her privity and consent, (the cause so nearly touching her prerogative,) or go about to do any such act. On a subsequent day, the bill against monopolies was again introduced, and Mr. Spicer said, “It is to no purpose to offer to tie her majesty’s hands by act of parliament, when she may loosen herself at her pleasure.” Mr. Davies said, “God hath given that power to absolute princes, which he attributes to himself. Dixi quod Dii estis.’” (N. B. This axiom he applies to the kings of England.) Mr. Secretary Cecil said, “I am servant to the queen, and before I would speak and give consent to a case that should debase her prerogative, or abridge it, I would wish that my tongue were cut out of my head. I am sure there were law-makers before there were laws; (meaning, I suppose, that the sovereign was above the laws.) One gentleman went about to possess us with the execution of the law in an ancient record of 5 or 7 of Edward III. Likely enough to be true in that time, when the king was afraid of the subject. If you stand upon law, and dispute of the prerogative, hark ye what Bracton says: ‘Praerogativam nestram nemo audeat disputare.’ And for my own part, I like not these courses should be taken. And you, Mr. Speaker, should perform the charge her majesty gave unto you in the beginning of this parliament, not to receive bills of this nature; for her majesty’s ears be open to all grievances, and her hands stretched out to every man’s petitions. When the prince dispenses with a penal law, that is left to the alteration of sovereignty, that is good and irrevocable.” Mr. Montague said, “I am loath to speak what I know, lest, perhaps, I should displease. The prerogative royal is that which is now in question, and which the laws of the land have ever allowed bad maintained. Let us, therefore, apply by petition to her majesty.” After the speaker told the house that the queen had annulled many of the patents, Mr. Francis More said, “I must confess, Mr. Speaker, I moved the house both the last parliament and this, touching this point; but I never meant (and I hope the house thinketh so) to set limits and bounds to the prerogative royal.” He proceeds to move that thanks should be given to her majesty; and also that whereas divers speeches have been moved extravagantly in the house, which, doubtless, have been told her majesty, and perhaps ill conceived of by her, Mr. Speaker would apologize, and humbly crave pardon for the same. N. B. These extracts were taken by Townsend, a member of the house, who was no courtier; and the extravagance of the speeches seems rather to be on the other side. It will certainly appear strange to us that this liberty should be thought extravagant. However, the queen, notwithstanding her cajoling the house, was so ill satisfied with these proceedings, that she spoke of them peevishly in her concluding speech, and told them, that she perceived that private respects with them were privately masked under public presence. D’Ewes, p. 619. There were some other topics in favor of prerogative, still more extravagant, advanced in the house this parliament. When the question of the subsidy was before them, Mr. Serjeant Heyle said, “Mr. Speaker, I marvel much that the house should stand upon granting of a subsidy or the time of payment, when all we have is her majesty’s, and she may lawfully at her pleasure take it from us; yea, she hath as much right to all our lands and goods as to any revenue of her crown.” At which all the house hemmed, and laughed, and talked “Well,” quoth Serjeant Heyle, “all your hemming shall not put me out of countenance.” So Mr. Speaker stood up and said, “It is a great disorder that this house should be so used.” So the said serjeant proceeded, and when he had spoken a little while, the house hemmed again; and so he sat down. In his latter speech, he said, he could prove his former position by precedents in the time of Henry III., King John, King Stephen, etc., which was the occasion of then: hemming. D’Ewes, p. 633. It is observable, that Heyle was an eminent lawyer, a man of character. Winwood, vol. i. p. 290. And though the house in general showed their disapprobation, no one cared to take him down, Or oppose these monstrous positions. It was also asserted this session, that in the same manner as the Roman consul was possessed of the power of rejecting or admitting motions in the senate, the speaker might either admit or reject bills in the house. D’Ewes, p. 677. The house declared themselves against this opinion; but the very proposal of it is a proof at what a low ebb liberty was at that time in England. In the year 1591, the judges made a solemn decree, that England was an absolute empire, of which the king was the head. In consequence of this opinion, they determined, that even if the act of the first of Elizabeth had never been made, the king was supreme head of the church; and might have erected, by his prerogative, such a court as the ecclesiastical commission; for that he was the head of all his subjects. Now that court was plainly arbitrary. The inference is, that his power was equally absolute over the laity. See Coke’s Reports, p. 5. Caudrey’s case.]

39 (return) [ NOTE MM, p. 359. We have remarked before, that Harrison, in book ii. chap. 11, says, that in the reign of Henry VIII. there were hanged seventy-two thousand thieves and rogues, (besides other malefactors;) this makes about two thousand a year: but in Queen Elizabeth’s time, the same author says, there were only between three and four hundred a year banged for theft and robbery; so much had the times mended. But in our age, there are not forty a year hanged for those crimes in all England. Yet Harrison complains of the relaxation of the laws, that there were so few such rogues punished in his time. Our vulgar prepossession in favor of the morals of former and rude ages, is very absurd, and ill-grounded. The same author says, (chap. 10,) that there were computed to be ten thousand gypsies in England; a species of banditti introduced about the reign of Henry VIII.; and he adds, that there will be no way of extirpating them by the ordinary course of justice. The queen must employ martial law against them. That race has now almost totally disappeared in England, and even in Scotland, where there were some remains of them a few years ago. However arbitrary the exercise of martial law in the crown, it appears that nobody in the age of Elizabeth entertained any jealousy of it.]

40 (return) [ NOTE NN, p. 367. Harrison, in his Description of Britain, printed in 1577, has the following passage, (chap. 13:) “Certes there is no prince in Europe that hath a more beautiful sort of ships than the queen’s majesty of England at this present; and those generally are of such exceeding force, that two of them, being well appointed and furnished as they ought, will not let to encounter with three or four of them of other countries, and either bowge them or put them to flight, if they may not bring them home. The queen’s highness hath, at this present, already made and furnished to the number of one and twenty great ships, which lie for the most part in Gillingham Rode. Beside these, her grace hath other in hand also, of whom hereafter, as their turns do come about, I will not let to leave some further remembrance. She hath likewise three notable galleys, the Speedwell, the Tryeright, and the Black Galley, with the sight whereof, and the rest of the navy royal, it is incredible to say how marvellously her grace is delighted; and not without great cause, sith by their means her coasts are kept in quiet, and sundry foreign enemies put back, which otherwise would invade us.” After speaking of the merchant ships, which, he says, are commonly estimated at seventeen or eighteen hundred, he continues: “I add, therefore, to the end all men should understand somewhat of the great masses of treasure daily employed upon our navy, how there are few of those ships of the first and second sort, (that is, of the merchant ships,) that, being apparelled and made ready to sail, are not worth one thousand pounds, or three thousand ducats at the least, if they should presently be sold. What shall we then think of the navy royal, of which some one vessel is worth two of the other, as the shipwright has often told me? It is possible that some covetous person, hearing this report, will either not credit at all, or suppose money so employed to be nothing profitable to the queen’s coffers; as a good husband said once, when he heard that provisions should be made for armor, wishing the queen’s money to be rather laid out to some speedier return of gain unto her grace. But if he wist that the good keeping of the sea is the safeguard of our land, he would alter his censure, and soon give over his judgment.” Speaking of the forests, this author says, “An infinite deal of wood hath been destroyed within these few years; and I dare affirm, that if wood do go so fast to decay in the next hundred years of grace, as they have done or are like to do in this, it is to be feared that sea coal will be good merchandise even in the city of London.” Harrison’s prophecy was fulfilled in a very few years; for about 1615, there were two hundred sail employed in carrying coal to London. See Anderson, vol. i. p. 494.]

41 (return) [ NOTE OO, p. 373. Life of Burleigh, published by Collins, f—44. The author hints that this quantity of plate was considered only as small in a man of Burleigh’s rank. His words are, “His plate was not above fourteen or fifteen thousand pounds.” That he means pounds weight is evident. For, by Burleigh’s will, which is annexed to his life, that nobleman gives away in legacies, to friends and relations, near four thousand pounds weight, which would have been above twelve thousand pounds sterling in value. The remainder he orders to be divided into two equal portions; the half to his eldest son and heir; the other half to be divided equally among his second son and three daughters. Were we therefore to understand the whole value of his plate to be only 14 or 16,000 pounds sterling, he left not the tenth of it to the heir of his family.]