source: other-projects/nightly-tasks/diffcol/trunk/model-collect/Tudor-Basic/archives/HASHd8a0.dir/doc.xml@ 34416

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE Archive SYSTEM "http://greenstone.org/dtd/Archive/1.0/Archive.dtd">
<Archive>
<Section>
  <Description>
    <Metadata name="gsdlfullsourcepath">/Scratch/ak19/gs2-diffcol-26Apr2019/collect/Tudor-Basic/import/englishhistory.net/tudor/beeslychapterfive.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="gsdlsourcefilename">import/englishhistory.net/tudor/beeslychapterfive.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="gsdlsourcefilerenamemethod">url</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="gsdldoctype">indexed_doc</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Plugin">HTMLPlugin</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="FileSize">43662</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Source">beeslychapterfive.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="SourceFile">beeslychapterfive.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Language">en</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Encoding">windows_1252</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Content">biography of Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) by Edward Spencer Beesly, 1892</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Page_topic">biography of Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) by Edward Spencer Beesly, 1892</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Author">Marilee Mongello</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Title">Secondary Sources: Queen Elizabeth by Edward Spencer Beesly, 1892: Chapter V</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="FileFormat">HTML</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="URL">http://englishhistory.net/tudor/beeslychapterfive.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="UTF8URL">http://englishhistory.net/tudor/beeslychapterfive.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Identifier">HASHd8a0b05e9bf41fe28359d1</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="lastmodified">1601256683</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="lastmodifieddate">20200928</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="oailastmodified">1601256849</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="oailastmodifieddate">20200928</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="assocfilepath">HASHd8a0.dir</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="gsdlassocfile">eliz1-ermine.jpg:image/jpeg:</Metadata>
  </Description>
  <Content>

&lt;table border=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;3&quot; width=&quot;100%&quot; height=&quot;667&quot;&gt;
  &lt;tr&gt;
    &lt;td width=&quot;25%&quot; height=&quot;29&quot;&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; width=&quot;50%&quot; height=&quot;29&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td width=&quot;25%&quot; height=&quot;29&quot;&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
  &lt;/tr&gt;
  &lt;tr&gt;
    &lt;td width=&quot;25%&quot; height=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td width=&quot;50%&quot; height=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td width=&quot;25%&quot; height=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
  &lt;/tr&gt;
  &lt;tr&gt;
    &lt;td width=&quot;25%&quot; height=&quot;610&quot;&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; width=&quot;50%&quot; height=&quot;610&quot;&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;7&quot;&gt;Queen Elizabeth&lt;br&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
    &lt;font size=&quot;4&quot;&gt;by Edward Spencer Beesly, 1892&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
    &lt;img border=&quot;2&quot; src=&quot;_httpdocimg_/eliz1-ermine.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;478&quot; alt=&quot;'The Ermine Portrait' of Elizabeth I, c1585, by Nicholas Hilliard&quot;&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
    &lt;i&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;'The Ermine Portrait' of Elizabeth I, c1585, by Nicholas 
    Hilliard;&lt;br&gt;from the &lt;a href=&quot;_httpextlink_&amp;amp;rl=0&amp;amp;href=http:%2f%2fwww.marileecody.com%2feliz1-images.html&quot;&gt;Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I&lt;/a&gt; website&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td width=&quot;25%&quot; height=&quot;610&quot;&gt;&lt;/td&gt;
  &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
  &lt;blockquote&gt;
    &lt;font style=&quot;font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif&quot;&gt;
    &lt;font style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman&quot;&gt;
    &lt;div align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;
      &lt;b&gt;CHAPTER V&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;
      &lt;b&gt;ARISTOCRATIC PLOTS: 1568-1572&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;FROM the beginning of the reign Cecil had 
    never ceased to impress upon his mistress that a French or Spanish invasion 
    on behalf of the Pope might at any time be expected, and that she should 
    hurry to meet it by forming a league with the foreign Protestants of both 
    Confessions, and vigorously assisting them to carry on a war of religion on 
    the Continent. He was assuredly too well informed to believe that France and 
    Spain would cease to counteract each other's designs on England, or that 
    Lutherans and Calvinists would heartily combine for mutual defence. The 
    enemies he really feared were his Catholic countrymen, with whom he would 
    have to fight for his head if Elizabeth should die. He therefore desired to 
    force on the struggle in her lifetime, when they would be rebels, and he 
    would wield the power of the Crown. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Elizabeth, on the other hand, was against 
    interference on the Continent, because it would be the surest way to bring 
    upon England the calamity of invasion. She saw as plainly as Cecil did that 
    it would compel her to throw herself into the arms of her own Protestants 
    and to become, like her two predecessors, the mere chief of a party; whereas 
    she meant to be the Queen of all Englishmen, and to tranquillise the natural 
    fears of each party by letting it see that it would not be sacrificed to the 
    violence of the other. Moreover the unbridled ascendancy of the Protestants 
    would mean such alterations in the established worship as would have driven 
    from the parish churches thousands of the most military class, peers, 
    squires and their tenantry, who were enduring Anglicanism with its 
    episcopate, its semi-Catholic prayer-book, and its claim to belong to the 
    Universal Apostolic Church, because they could persuade themselves that its 
    variations from the old religion were unimportant and temporary. And this 
    again would increase the probability of foreign invasion. For, though to 
    Philip all forms of heresy were equally damnable and equally marked out for 
    extermination sooner or later, yet he was in much less hurry to begin with 
    the politically harmless Lutherans or Anglicans than with the dangerous 
    levellers who derived their inspiration from Geneva. Now for Elizabeth to 
    gain time was everything. She had gained ten precious years already by her 
    moderation. She was to gain twenty more before the slow-moving Spaniard 
    decided to launch the great Armada. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;But though Elizabeth shunned war with Spain 
    she nevertheless resognised that Philip was the enemy, and that all ways of 
    damaging him short of war were for her advantage. English and Huguenot 
    corsairs swarmed in the Channel. Spanish ships were seized. The crews were 
    hanged or made to walk the plank; the prizes were carried into English 
    ports, and there sold without disguise or rebuke. These outrages were 
    represented as reprisals for cruelties inflicted on English sailors who 
    occasionally fell into the hands of the Inquisition. Practically a ship with 
    a valuable cargo was treated as fair game whatever its nationality. But 
    while in the case of other countries it was only individual traders who 
    suffered, to Spain it meant obstruction of her high road to her Belgic 
    dominions, then simmering with disaffection. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The English nobles of the old blood disliked 
    these proceedings. Even Cecil did not conceal from himself that they 
    fostered a spirit of lawlessness. What the corsairs were doing he would have 
    preferred to see done by the royal navy. To that Elizabeth would not 
    consent. The activity of the corsairs gave her all the advantage she could 
    hope to have from war, without any of its disadvantages. Instead of laying 
    out her treasure on a navy, she was deriving an income from the piratical 
    ventures of Hawkins and Drake; while the ships and sailors of this volunteer 
    navy would be available for the defence of the country whenever the need 
    should arise. Whatever may be thought of the morality of her plan, there can 
    be no question as to its efficiency and economy. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Since even these outrages, exasperating as 
    they were, had not goaded Philip to the point of declaring war, a still more 
    daring provocation now followed. Some ships, conveying a large sum of money 
    borrowed by Philip in Genoa for the payment of Alva's army, having put into 
    English ports to avoid the corsairs, Elizabeth, with the hearty approval of 
    Cecil, took possession of the money, and said she would herself borrow it 
    from the Genoese (December 1568). The Minister hoped this would bring on a 
    war. The Queen audaciously but more correctly anticipated that Philip's 
    resentment would still stop short of that extremity. He remonstrated: he 
    threatened: he seized all English ships and sailors in his ports. Elizabeth, 
    undismayed, swept all the Spaniards and Flemings whom she could find in 
    London into her prisons, and seized their goods, to a value far greater than 
    that of the English property in Philip's grasp. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;In striking contrast with this unflinching 
    attitude towards Spain was the behaviour of Elizabeth when threatened with 
    war by France, unless she undertook to close her harbours to the Huguenots, 
    and to forbid her own corsairs to prey on French commerce. The summons was 
    promptly obeyed. Full satisfaction was made (April 1569). Yet France was at 
    the moment a far less formidable antagonist than Spain. The French 
    government did not possess the means of invading England. On this side of 
    the Channel the old anti-French feeling was so persistent that all parties 
    were ready and willing for the fray. The defeat of the Huguenots at Jarnac 
    (April 1569) may have had something to do with Elizabeth's compliance. But 
    what influenced her still more was her perception that war with France would 
    compel her to place herself under the protection of Spain; whereas she 
    desired to keep Spain at arm's-length, and to maintain a good understanding 
    with France, as did Eliot, Pym, and Cromwell afterwards, regardless of the 
    rooted prejudices of their countrymen. Elizabeth probably stood alone in her 
    judgment on this occasion. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The quarrel with Philip had more serious 
    results at home than abroad. It was indirectly the cause of the only English 
    rebellion that disturbed the long reign of Elizabeth. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Most of the nobility and gentry, even when 
    professedly Protestants, regretted the alienation of England from the 
    Universal Church. If they had all pulled together they must have had their 
    way, for they were the military and political class. But their discontent 
    varied widely in its intensity. There were nobles like Sussex who were 
    resolved to serve their Queen loyally and zealously, but who, all the same, 
    wished her to cultivate a good understanding with Philip, to marry the 
    Archduke, to abstain from assisting the Huguenots, to give no countenance to 
    the rovers, to recognise Mary as her heir-presumptive and marry her to 
    Norfolk. There were others like Norfolk, Montagu, Arundel, and Southampton, 
    who had treasonable relations with the Spanish ambassador, and aimed at 
    overthrowing Cecil, marrying Mary to Norfolk, and compelling the Queen to 
    restore the Catholic worship, or at least to make such changes in the 
    Anglican model as would facilitate a reunion with Rome when Mary should 
    succeed. A third party, headed by the Catholic lords of the north, was 
    plotting to depose Elizabeth in favour of Mary, and to marry the latter to 
    Don John of Austria. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;With these powerful nobles in opposition, 
    who, before the Reformation, could have hurled any sovereign from his 
    throne, where was Elizabeth to look for support? The town populations were 
    Protestant --too Protestant indeed for her taste. But the town populations 
    were a minority, and less military than the landowners and their tenants. 
    She had her Cecils, Bacons, Walsinghams, Hunsdons, Knollyses, Sadlers, 
    Killegrews, Drurys, capable and devoted servants, but new men without 
    territorial wealth or influence, and with no force except what they 
    possessed as wielding the power of the Crown. It would be difficult to name 
    more than half-a-dozen peers who zealously promoted her policy. Most of them 
    looked on it coldly, and would support her only as long as she seemed to be 
    strongest. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Mary's rejection of Elizabeth's terms 
    coincided with the quarrel with Philip (December 1568). The disaffected 
    nobles thought that the time was now come for striking a blow. Conscious 
    that the feudal devotion of the gentry and yeomanry to their local chiefs 
    had in Tudor times been largely superseded by awe of the central government, 
    they were importuning Philip to give them the signal for rebellion by 
    sending a division of Alva's army from the Netherlands. Philip, cautious as 
    usual, and afraid of driving England into alliance with France, declined to 
    send a soldier until either the Norfolk party had overthrown Cecil, or the 
    northern lords had carried off Mary. Between these two sets of conspirators 
    there was much jealousy and distrust. The Spanish ambassador thought the 
    southern scheme the most feasible. Not without difficulty he persuaded the 
    northern lords to wait till it should be seen whether the Queen could be 
    induced or compelled to sanction the marriage of Mary with Norfolk. If she 
    refused, they were to make a dash on Wingfield, a seat of Lord Shrewsbury's 
    in Derbyshire where Mary was staying, while Norfolk was to raise the eastern 
    counties. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;All through the summer of 1569 these plots 
    were brewing. Three times Norfolk and his father-in-law Arundel went to the 
    Council with the intention of arresting Cecil. Three times their hearts 
    failed them. The northern lords, who were not members of the Council, came 
    up to London to see Norfolk bell the cat, but went back, more suspicious 
    than ever, to make their own preparations. Cecil himself seems to have been 
    hedging. In his private advice to the Queen he was opposing the Norfolk 
    marriage, pointing out that free or in prison, married or single, in England 
    or in Scotland, Mary must always be dangerous, and breathing for the first 
    time the suggestion that she might lawfully be put to death in England for 
    complicity in English plots. In the Council he concurred in a vote that she 
    should be married to an Englishman --in other words, to Norfolk. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;If Elizabeth could have felt any confidence 
    in Norfolk's loyalty, it seems probable that much as she disliked the 
    marriage she would have yielded to the almost unanimous pronouncement of the 
    nobility in its favour. But a sure instinct warned her of her danger. &amp;quot;If 
    she consented she would be in the Tower before four months were over.&amp;quot; After 
    much deliberation she commanded the Duke on his allegiance to renounce his 
    project. He gave his promise, but soon retired to his own county, and sent 
    word to the northern earls that &amp;quot;he would stand and abide the venture.&amp;quot; But 
    while he was shivering and hesitating, Elizabeth, for once, was all 
    promptitude and decision. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Mary was hurried to Tutbury Castle. Arundel 
    and Pembroke were summoned to Windsor, and kept under surveillance. Norfolk 
    himself came in quietly, and was lodged in the Tower. Thus the southern 
    conspiracy collapsed (September-October 1569). &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The Catholic lords and gentlemen of the north 
    who had been awaiting Norfolk's signal, were staggered by his tame 
    surrender. Sussex, who was in command at York, and who, being of the old 
    blood himself, did not care to see old houses crushed, advised Elizabeth to 
    wink at their half-begun treason, and be thankful it had not come to 
    fighting. She winked at the attempted flight to Alva of Southampton and 
    Montagu, and even affected to trust the latter with the command of the 
    militia called out in Sussex. She could afford to ignore the disaffection of 
    a southern noble. A Sussex squire or yeoman, even if he was not a 
    Protestant, would think twice before he cast in his lot with rebellion. The 
    northern counties were mainly Catholic. They were much behind the south in 
    civilisation. The Tudor sovereigns were never seen there. Great families 
    were still looked up to. Elizabeth knew that though rebellion might be 
    adjourned, might possibly never come off, it was a constant menace, which 
    crippled her policy. She determined therefore to have done with it, once for 
    all, and summoned Northumberland and Westmoreland to London. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Thus driven into a corner, the two earls 
    burst into rebellion. They entered Durham in arms, overthrew the communion 
    table in the cathedral, set up the old altar, and had mass said (14 November 
    1569). Next day they marched south, with the object of rescuing Mary from 
    Tutbury. But when they were within fifty miles of that place, Shrewsbury and 
    Huntingdon, in obedience to hurried orders from London, conveyed her to 
    Coventry. Having thus missed their spring, the rebel earls halted 
    irresolutely for three days, and then turned back. Their followers dropped 
    away from them. Clinton and Warwick were on their track, with the musters of 
    the Midlands; and before the end of December they were fain to fly across 
    the Border. Northumberland was arrested by Moray. Two years later he was 
    given up to Elizabeth, and executed. Westmoreland, after being protected for 
    a time by Ker of Ferniehirst, escaped to the Netherlands, where he died. 
    England was not again disturbed by rebellion till the great civil war.
    &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The failure of the northern earls to kindle a 
    general rebellion was due to the cautious and temporising policy for which 
    Elizabeth has been so severely blamed by heated partisans. The powerful 
    party which preferred a Spanish alliance, disliked religious innovation, and 
    looked forward to the succession of Mary, had not been driven to despair of 
    accomplishing those ends in a lawful way. Their avowed policy had not been 
    proscribed--had not even been repudiated. Some of their chief leaders were 
    on the Council--as we should say, were members of the Government; others 
    were employed and trusted and visited by the Queen. They objected to being 
    hurried into civil war by the northern lords, who were not of the Council, 
    who kept away from London, and were rebels by inheritance and tradition. 
    They would have nothing to do with the ill-advised movement; and, as in 
    those days neutrality in the presence of open insurrection was no more 
    permissible to a nobleman than it would be now to an officer in the army, 
    they had no choice but to range themselves on the side of the Government. If 
    Elizabeth had openly branded the Queen of Scots as a murderess, if she had 
    pointed to Huntingdon or the son of Catherine Grey as her successor, if she 
    had put herself at the head of a Protestant league, she might possibly have 
    come victorious out of a civil war. But a civil war it would have been, and 
    of the worst kind: one party calling in the Spaniard, and the other, in all 
    probability, driven to call in the Frenchman. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The assassination of Moray a few weeks later 
    (23 January 1570) was a severe blow to Elizabeth, and an irreparable 
    disaster to his own country. An attempt has been made to create an 
    impression that the English Queen was somehow responsible for his death, 
    because she did not march an army into Scotland to support him. He no more 
    wished to receive an English army into Scotland than Elizabeth wished to 
    send one. Therein they were both of them wiser than the critics of their own 
    day, or this. What he did ask for was money, and the recognition of James. 
    The request for money Elizabeth was willing to consider, though, as a rule, 
    she did not believe in paying for any work she could get done gratis. The 
    recognition of James seems a very simple thing to the critics. But it was as 
    difficult for Elizabeth as the recognition of the Prince of Bulgaria is now 
    to Austria, and for similar reasons. She was under no obligation whatever to 
    Moray. His own interest compelled him to play her game. But she well knew 
    his value. On hearing of his death she shut herself up in her chamber, 
    exclaiming, with tears, that she had lost the best friend she had in the 
    world. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;As long as Moray lived, and was able to keep 
    the Marian lords in some sort of check, Elizabeth judged, and rightly, that 
    she had more to lose than to gain by any open interference in Scotland. It 
    was no business of hers to put down anarchy there. Scotch anarchy did not 
    imperil England. What would imperil England would be the appearance of 
    French troops in Scotland; and she judged that nothing would be so likely to 
    bring them there as any pretension to establish an English protectorate. Her 
    Protestant councillors fretted at her &lt;i&gt;laisser faire&lt;/i&gt; policy. But then 
    they, for personal or at least for sectarian reasons, were eager for that 
    general European conflagration which she, with superior discernment and 
    larger patriotism, was trying to avert. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The death of Moray so weakened the King's 
    party that it became necessary to give them a little help. Elizabeth gave it 
    in such a way as she thought would be least likely to excite the jealousy of 
    France. She told the new Regent Lennox that, though she could not send an 
    army to support him, she would send one to chastise the Hamiltons and the 
    Borderers, who were harbouring her rebel the Earl of Westmoreland, and, 
    along with him, making raids into England. This was done sharply and 
    thoroughly. The robber holds on the Border, and Hamilton Castle itself, were 
    one after another taken and blown up by the English Wardens of the Marches 
    (April and May 1570). &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;What Elizabeth desired more than anything 
    else was to settle Scotch affairs, in conjunction with France, on the terms 
    that neither power should interfere in Scotland. To Cecil this was 
    unsatisfactory, because the restoration of Mary, on any terms whatever, 
    would, if she survived Elizabeth, ensure her succession to the English 
    throne, and the ruin of Cecil himself. He did not want to conciliate 
    Catholics at home or abroad. He wanted to commit his mistress to an 
    internecine war with them. In an angry dispute with Arundel at the Council 
    board about this time, he blurted out his doctrine, that the Queen had no 
    friends but the Protestants, and that if she restored Mary she would lose 
    them all. No language could have been more displeasing to Elizabeth, 
    especially in the presence of crypto-Catholic lords, and she snubbed him 
    unmercifully. &amp;quot;Mr Secretary, I mean to have done with this business; I shall 
    listen to the proposals of the French King. I am not going to be tied any 
    longer to you and your brethren in Christ.&amp;quot; &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The peace of St. Germain between the French 
    court and the Huguenots (August 8, 1570), and the disgrace of the Guises, 
    were followed by negotiations for a tripartite treaty between England, 
    France, and Scotland on the basis of the restoration of Mary. Elizabeth, of 
    course, insisted on the guarantees she had often sketched out. She was 
    willing--nay, anxious--to leave Scotland alone, if the French would do the 
    same. The French, on the other hand, felt that the equality of such an 
    arrangement was more seeming than real, because there were always English 
    troops lying at Berwick, within sixty miles of Edinburgh. They haggled over 
    the guarantees, and in the meantime, notwithstanding the real desire of 
    Catherine and Charles IX. to conclude an alliance with Elizabeth against 
    Philip, they continued to send money and encouragement to the Marian lords 
    in Scotland. For if, for any reason, the English alliance should not come 
    off, they meant to take up Mary's cause in earnest, and detach her from her 
    Guise relations by marrying her to the Duke of Anjou, afterwards Henry III.
    &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;All this was known to Elizabeth, and in her 
    extreme anxiety for the tripartite treaty, she thought the moment was come 
    to dangle the bait which she always reserved for occasions of special 
    importance. She informed the French ambassador that she was ready to marry 
    Anjou herself. It is not to be supposed that she had the least intention of 
    doing so. She had settled with herself from the first how she would get out 
    of her proposal when it had served its turn. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;A minor motive for this move was the hope 
    that it would reconcile her Protestant councillors to the restoration of 
    Mary. She did not succeed with all of them. Some continued to mutter that 
    Anjou was a Papist, that tripartite treaties were a delusion, and that the 
    only safe course was to grasp the Scotch nettle and uphold James with the 
    whole force of England. But upon Cecil the effect was almost comical. He 
    jumped at the plan. Anything that was likely to make Elizabeth a mother 
    would be salvation to him. Whether the Queen at the mature age of 
    thirty-seven was likely to be happy with a husband of twenty was a question 
    that did not give him a moment's concern. She was not too old to have two or 
    three children, and, that result once achieved, Mary might go to Scotland or 
    anywhere else for what he cared, and do her worst. The sanguine man already 
    saw visions of a converted Valois heading an Anglo-French crusade against 
    Philip, and establishing the reformed faith throughout Europe. Walsingham 
    his right-hand man, then ambassador at Paris, was equally bitten. This was 
    in the year before the massacre of St. Bartholomew. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The overture of Elizabeth was very welcome to 
    the French court. Negotiations for the match were soon opened, and continued 
    during the first six months of 1571. At the same time, both the Scotch 
    factions were summoned to accept the tripartite arrangement. Mary was at 
    first eager for it, and instructed her agent, the Bishop of Ross, to swallow 
    every condition that might be imposed. She looked on it as the only means of 
    obtaining her release. But there is ample proof that she intended to throw 
    its stipulations to the winds and fight for her own cause when once she 
    should get back to Scotland. In playing this perfidious game, she had 
    confidently counted on the help of France. The Regent's party, however, 
    declined the treaty. They dreaded Mary's return, and they had no wish to 
    shake hands with the Marian lords or admit them to a share in the 
    Government. The tripartite scheme thus fell through. Mary herself ceased to 
    care for it as soon as she heard of the projected match between Elizabeth 
    and Anjou. She saw that if France was going to co-operate heartily with 
    England, her sovereignty in Scotland would be merely nominal. She might 
    almost as well remain with Lord Shrewsbury. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;To remain quietly in England and be content 
    with her position as heir-presumptive to the English crown was indeed the 
    best and safest course open to her. She had only to acquiesce in it and give 
    up plotting, and she might have lived here in considerable magnificence, and 
    with as much freedom as she could desire. If she wished for a husband, she 
    might have married any Englishman of whose loyalty Elizabeth could feel 
    assured. It was of the greatest importance to both countries that she should 
    bear more children. For it must be remembered that if James had died in his 
    childhood, his next heir was a Hamilton, who had no title to the English 
    throne. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;If the proposed Anjou match had not produced 
    the full results which Elizabeth hoped, it had at least defeated the plans 
    and disorganised the party of her rival. It had served its turn; and all 
    that now remained was to get out of it as decently as possible. The old 
    pretext for breaking off the Austrian match was reproduced. Anjou could not 
    be allowed to have a private mass; and when, in its eagerness, the French 
    court seemed disposed to give way on this point, Elizabeth began to talk 
    about a restitution of Calais. Ruefully did poor Cecil watch the vanishing 
    of his dream. It was to no purpose that he tried to frighten Elizabeth by 
    representing that a jilted prince would be converted into an angry enemy. 
    She knew better. Anjou comprehended that she did not mean to have him, and, 
    to avoid the indignity of a refusal, himself broke off negotiations. But, as 
    Elizabeth had calculated, the new alliance did not suffer. The French King 
    went out of his way to say that &amp;quot;for her upright dealing he would honour the 
    Queen of England during his life,&amp;quot; and Catherine, most unsentimental of 
    women, had another suitor to offer--her youngest son Alençon, then just 
    turned seventeen! &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;While the negotiations for the Anjou match 
    were going on, what is known as the Ridolfi Plot was hatching against 
    Elizabeth. Ridolfi, an Italian banker in London, and secretly an agent of 
    the Pope, was in close relations with Norfolk and the other peers who for 
    two years had been dabbling in treason. They were still pressing Philip to 
    invade England; but he and Alva were less than ever disposed to undertake 
    the venture since the pitiful collapse of the northern insurrection. In 
    order to impress Philip with the importance of the conspiracy, Ridolfi went 
    to Madrid, and showed Philip a letter purporting to be written by Norfolk, 
    to which was attached a list of noblemen stated to be favourable to the 
    cause. It contained the names of forty out of the sixty-seven peers then 
    existing, while, of the rest, some were marked as neutral, and fifteen at 
    most as true to Elizabeth. The classification was on the face of it absurdly 
    untrustworthy. But correct or incorrect, it did not weigh with Philip. He 
    wanted deeds, not lists of names, and Ridolfi was informed that, unless 
    Elizabeth were first assassinated or imprisoned, not a Spanish soldier could 
    be sent to England. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Whatever secret disaffection might prevail 
    among the peers, the temper displayed by the new House of Commons, elected 
    in the spring of 1571, was not of a kind to encourage Elizabeth's enemies at 
    home or abroad. So far as can be judged from its proceedings and debates, it 
    was not only entirely Protestant, but largely Puritan.(1) A bill was passed 
    by which any person refusing, on demand, to acknowledge Elizabeth's right to 
    the crown was made incapable of succeeding her; a provision which, though it 
    did not name Mary, could apply to no one else. It was made high treason to 
    deny that the inheritance of the crown could be determined by the Queen and 
    Parliament. To affirm in writing that any particular person was entitled to 
    succeed the Queen, except the Queen's issue, or some one established by 
    Parliament, was made punishable with imprisonment for life, and forfeiture 
    of all property for the second offence. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The plot which Ridolfi was so busily pushing 
    in 1571 was, in fact, a continuation of the twin aristocratic conspiracies, 
    one of which had exploded in the northern insurrection. By forcing that 
    insurrection to break out before the southern conspirators had made up their 
    minds what to do, the Government had effectually destroyed what chances of 
    success the disaffected nobles had ever had. Alva was right in his judgment 
    that, if the Percys, Nevilles, and Dacres could do so little, the Howard 
    group, whose estates, vast as they were, lay, for the most part, in more 
    orderly and civilised parts of the country, could do still less. There was, 
    indeed, some talk among them of seizing the Queen at the opening of the 
    Parliament of 1571, just as there had been a talk of arresting Cecil two 
    years before. But the truth was that insurrection was a played-out game in 
    England; and if Norfolk had been a ten-times abler and bolder man than he 
    was, it would have made no difference. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The true history of the time is not to be 
    read in the croakings and wailings privately exchanged between Cecil, 
    Walsingham, and the rest of the Protestant junto, angry and alarmed because 
    Elizabeth would not let them play her cards for her. It is a strange 
    perversity which persists in adopting their view that she was on the brink 
    of ruin, when the patent fact is that Protestantism was making rapid 
    strides, that the Queen's personal popularity was increasing every day, and 
    that Spain, France, and Scotland, the only countries with which she was 
    concerned, were all humble suitors for her alliance on almost any terms that 
    it might please her to exact. The correspondence of Philip with Alva is 
    there to prove, that while writhing under the repeated aggressions of 
    England, he was obliged to put up with them because a war would imperil his 
    hold on the Netherlands. To all the invitations of the Norfolks and 
    Northumberlands, the able and well-informed Alva turned a deaf ear, because 
    he believed Elizabeth too strong to be overthrown. A French alliance she 
    could always have as long as the Guises were excluded from power. If they 
    regained their influence the Huguenots would keep them fully occupied. 
    Scotland, unless foreign troops made their appearance there, could be no 
    source of danger to England. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Elizabeth's policy was thus, in its broad 
    lines, as simple as it was successful. At home it was her wisdom to wink as 
    long as possible at the disaffection of the few, to win the affection of the 
    many by economical government, to reserve the persecuting laws for special 
    cases, while preventing any general and sweeping application of them, and, 
    lastly, to drive no party to desperation by a too pronounced encouragement 
    of its opponents. Spain, as being the centre of reaction and the hope of her 
    disloyal nobles, she meant to harass and weaken as far as she could do so 
    without bringing on an open war. With Charles IX. and his mother she desired 
    a defensive alliance, and an understanding that neither country should send 
    troops into Scotland or permit Spain to do so. In its general conception, I 
    repeat, this policy was simple and coherent. How it succeeded we know. There 
    was nothing sentimental about it, though, where individuals were concerned, 
    Elizabeth's judgment was sometimes warped by sentiment. Upon the whole, she 
    kept herself at the English point of view. Whereas Cecil was compelled by 
    personal considerations to place himself too much at the point of view of 
    his &amp;quot;brethren in Christ,&amp;quot; both at home and abroad. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;However, a plot there was, and it was 
    necessary that it should be unravelled and punished. Almost from its 
    inception, Cecil (created Lord Burghley February 1571), had been more or 
    less on the scent of it. Hints had come from abroad: spies had been 
    employed: suspected persons had been closely watched: inferior agents had 
    been imprisoned, questioned, racked: and enough had been discovered to make 
    it certain that Englishmen of the highest rank were plotting treason. Who 
    they were might be suspected, but was not ascertained until a lucky arrest 
    put the Minister in possession of evidence incriminating Norfolk, Arundel, 
    Southampton, Lumley, Cobham, the Spanish ambassador, the Bishop of Ross, and 
    Mary herself (September 1571). Norfolk was sent to the Tower, and the other 
    peers placed under arrest. The ambassador was dismissed. The Bishop made 
    ample confessions. Mary, who had hitherto lived as the guest of Lord 
    Shrewsbury, enjoying field-sports, receiving her friends and corresponding 
    with whom she would, was confined to a single room, and carefully cut off, 
    for a time, from all communication with the outer world. Both in England and 
    abroad it was universally expected that she would be brought to trial and 
    executed. James was at length officially styled &amp;quot;King&amp;quot; and his mother &amp;quot;late 
    Queen.&amp;quot; Her partisans in Edinburgh Castle were informed that she would never 
    be restored, and that, if they did not surrender the Castle to the Regent 
    Mar, an English force would be sent to take it. The casket letters had 
    hitherto been withheld from publication under pressure from Elizabeth; they 
    were now at last given to the world in the famous &amp;quot;Detection&amp;quot; of Buchanan.
    &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Under any other Tudor, or under the Stuarts, 
    all the peers arrested would undoubtedly have lost their heads. Norfolk 
    alone was brought to trial (January 1572). There was much in the proceedings 
    which, according to modern notions, was unfair to the accused. But the peers 
    who tried him felt sure that he was guilty, and they were right. Subsequent 
    investigations have established beyond a doubt that he had conspired to 
    bring a foreign army into the country--the worst form that treason can take. 
    He had done this with contemptible hypocrisy, for a purely selfish object, 
    and after the most lenient and generous construction had been placed on his 
    first steps in crime. And yet historians have been found to make light of 
    the offence, and to pity the malefactor as the victim of a romantic 
    attachment to a woman whom he had never seen, and whom he believed to be an 
    adulteress and a murderess. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;During the spring of 1572 Elizabeth hesitated 
    to let justice take its course. She had reigned fourteen years without 
    taking the life of a single noble. The scaffold on Tower Hill from such long 
    disuse was falling to pieces, and Norfolk's sentence had made it necessary 
    to erect a new one. Elizabeth was loath to break the spell. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Not knowing with any certainty how many of 
    her nobles might have given more or less approval to the Ridolfi plot, but 
    confident that she could cow them by letting the voice of the untitled 
    aristocracy and middle class be heard, she called a new Parliament (May 
    1572). The response went beyond her expectation. Of Mary's well-wishers, 
    once so numerous, all except a few fanatics had now given her up. Two 
    alternative courses of action with respect to her were submitted for 
    consideration, with the intimation that the Queen would accept whichever of 
    them Parliament should approve. The first was attainder. The second was that 
    she should be disabled from succession to the crown; that if she attempted 
    treason again she should &amp;quot;suffer pains of death without further trouble of 
    Parliament;&amp;quot; and that it should be treason if she assented to any enterprise 
    to deliver her out of prison. Both houses at once voted to proceed with the 
    attainder. Elizabeth, we may be sure, was not sorry for this unmistakable 
    exhibition of feeling. It would open the eyes of her enemies both at home 
    and abroad. But she had no intention of proceeding to such extremities this 
    time. Mary should have fair warning. Accordingly Parliament was desired to 
    &amp;quot;defer&amp;quot; the bill of attainder, and to proceed with the second measure. But 
    the Commons were in grim earnest. They immediately resolved that the second 
    bill would be useless and even mischievous, as it would imply that at 
    present Mary had a right of succession, whereas she was already disabled by 
    law; and that they therefore preferred to proceed with the attainder. With 
    this resolution the Lords concurred. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Here they were on dangerous ground. To rake 
    up the law empowering Henry VIII. to determine the succession was to disable 
    all the Stuarts, James included, and so to throw away the opportunity of 
    uniting the crowns. Elizabeth had always, for excellent reasons, refused to 
    allow this question to be raised. Accordingly she again directed the House 
    to defer the attainder; she would not have the Scottish Queen &amp;quot;either 
    enabled or disabled to or from any manner of title to the crown,&amp;quot; nor &amp;quot;any 
    other &lt;i&gt;title&lt;/i&gt; to the same whatsoever touched at all;&amp;quot; to make sure of 
    which she would have the second bill drawn by her own law officers. To the 
    repeated demands of the Commons for the execution of Norfolk, she at length 
    gave way, and a few days later he was beheaded (2 June 1572). The second 
    bill, as drawn by the law officers, passed both Houses. Its exact terms are 
    not known, for it never received the royal assent. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Burghley who was of opinion (as some one 
    afterwards said about Strafford) that &amp;quot;stone dead hath no fellow,&amp;quot; bemoaned 
    himself privately to Walsingham on the disappointment of their hopes; and 
    modern historians, with whom his authority is final, are loud in their 
    condemnation of Elizabeth's vacillation and blindness. Vacillation there was 
    really none. She had determined from the first not to allow Mary to be 
    punished. She had gained all she wanted when the temper of Parliament had 
    been ascertained and displayed to the world. There have always been plenty 
    of people to accuse her of treachery and cruelty because she put Mary to 
    death fifteen years later, for complicity in an assassination plot. How 
    would her name have gone down to posterity if the Scottish Queen had been 
    executed in 1572 merely for inviting a foreign army to rescue her from 
    captivity? &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;/font&gt;
    &lt;hr&gt;
    &lt;/font&gt;
    &lt;font face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Notes:&lt;/b&gt; 1. The oath of supremacy imposed on members of 
    the House of Commons in 1562 practically excluded conscientious Catholics. &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;/font&gt;
    &lt;font style=&quot;font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif&quot;&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;From &lt;i&gt;
    Queen Elizabeth&lt;/i&gt; by Edward Spencer Beesly.&amp;nbsp; Published in London by 
    Macmillan and Co., 1892.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;/font&gt;
    &lt;font face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;
  &lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

    &lt;p align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
    &lt;a href=&quot;_httpextlink_&amp;amp;rl=1&amp;amp;href=http:%2f%2fenglishhistory.net%2ftudor%2fbeeslychaptersix.html&quot;&gt;to Chapter 
    VI: Foreign Affairs: 1572-1583&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
    &lt;a href=&quot;_httpextlink_&amp;amp;rl=1&amp;amp;href=http:%2f%2fenglishhistory.net%2ftudor%2fmonarchs%2feliz1.html&quot;&gt;to the Queen 
    Elizabeth I website&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp; /&amp;nbsp;
    &lt;a href=&quot;_httpextlink_&amp;amp;rl=1&amp;amp;href=http:%2f%2fenglishhistory.net%2ftudor%2frelative%2fmaryqos.html&quot;&gt;to the Mary, 
    queen of Scots website&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;_httpextlink_&amp;amp;rl=1&amp;amp;href=http:%2f%2fenglishhistory.net%2ftudor%2fsecondary.html&quot;&gt;
    to Secondary Sources&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;/font&gt;
  


&lt;!-- text below generated by server. PLEASE REMOVE --&gt;&lt;!-- Counter/Statistics data collection code --&gt;&lt;script language=&quot;JavaScript&quot; src=&quot;_httpextlink_&amp;amp;rl=0&amp;amp;href=http:%2f%2fhostingprod.com%2fjs%5fsource%2fgeov2.js&quot;&gt;&lt;/script&gt;&lt;script language=&quot;javascript&quot;&gt;geovisit();&lt;/script&gt;&lt;noscript&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;_httpextlink_&amp;amp;rl=0&amp;amp;el=direct&amp;amp;href=http://visit.webhosting.yahoo.com/visit.gif?us1108082624&quot; alt=&quot;setstats&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;1&quot; height=&quot;1&quot;&gt;&lt;/noscript&gt;
&lt;IMG SRC=&quot;_httpextlink_&amp;amp;rl=0&amp;amp;el=direct&amp;amp;href=http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=76001524&amp;t=1108082624&quot; ALT=1 WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1&gt;
</Content>
</Section>
</Archive>