source: other-projects/nightly-tasks/diffcol/trunk/model-collect/Tudor-Basic/archives/HASHdaa0.dir/doc.xml@ 28811

<?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="gsdlsourcefilename">import/englishhistory.net/tudor/beeslychapternine.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="gsdldoctype">indexed_doc</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Plugin">HTMLPlugin</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="FileSize">28147</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Source">beeslychapternine.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="SourceFile">beeslychapternine.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 IX</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="FileFormat">HTML</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="URL">http://englishhistory.net/tudor/beeslychapternine.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="UTF8URL">http://englishhistory.net/tudor/beeslychapternine.html</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="Identifier">HASHdaa0ae5ebcf3fee49357c1</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="lastmodified">1391131188</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="lastmodifieddate">20140131</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="oailastmodified">1391131552</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="oailastmodifieddate">20140131</Metadata>
    <Metadata name="assocfilepath">HASHdaa0.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: Times New Roman&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
    &lt;font style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
    &lt;font style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
    &lt;font style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&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 IX&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;
      &lt;b&gt;EXECUTION OF THE QUEEN OF SCOTS: 1584-1587&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;THROGMORTON'S plot--of which the Queen of 
    Scots was undoubtedly cognisant, though it was not pressed against 
    her--brought home to every one the danger in which Elizabeth stood (1584). 
    To the Catholic conspiracy, the temptation to take her life was enormous. It 
    was becoming clear that, while she lived, the much talked of insurrection 
    would never come off. The large majority of Catholics would have nothing to 
    do with it --still less with foreign invasion. They would obey their lawful 
    sovereign. But if once Elizabeth were dead, by whatever means, their lawful 
    sovereign would be Mary. The rebels would be the Protestants, if they should 
    try to place any one else on the throne. The Protestants had no organisation. 
    They had no candidate for the crown ready. It was to be feared that no great 
    noble would step forward to lead them. Burghley himself, though longing as 
    much as ever for Mary's head, had with a prudent eye to all eventualities, 
    contrived some time before to persuade her that he was her well-wisher. 
    Houses of Commons, it is true, had shown themselves strongly and 
    increasingly Protestant. But with the demise of the crown, Parliament, if in 
    being at the time, would be &lt;i&gt;ipso facto&lt;/i&gt; dissolved. The Privy Council, 
    in like manner, would cease to have any legal existence. Burghley, 
    Walsingham, and the other new men of whom it was mostly composed, had no 
    power or weight, except as instruments of the sovereign. Her death would 
    leave them helpless. The country would take its direction not from them, but 
    from the great nobles of large ancestral possessions. Nor could they provide 
    for such an emergency by privately selecting a Protestant successor 
    beforehand, and privately organising their partisans. It would have been as 
    much as their lives were worth if their mistress had caught them doing 
    anything of the kind. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;In this dilemma an ingenious plan suggested 
    itself to them. They drew up a &amp;quot;Bond of Association,&amp;quot; by which the 
    subscribers engaged that, if the Queen were murdered, they would never 
    accept as successor any one &amp;quot;by whom &lt;i&gt;or for whom&lt;/i&gt;&amp;quot; such act should be 
    committed, but would &amp;quot;prosecute such person to death.&amp;quot; &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This was a hypothetical way of excluding Mary 
    and organising a Protestant resistance to which Elizabeth could make no 
    objection. But the ministers knew that, as a merely voluntary association 
    without Parliamentary sanction, it would add little strength or confidence 
    to the Protestant party. It would not even test their numbers; for no Marian 
    ventured to refuse the oath. Mary herself desired to be allowed to take it. 
    The bond was therefore converted into a Statute by Parliament, though not 
    without some important alterations (March 1585). It was enacted that if the 
    realm was invaded, or a rebellion instigated, by &lt;i&gt;or for&lt;/i&gt; any one 
    pretending a title to the succession, or if the Queen's murder was plotted 
    by any one, or with the privity of any one that pretended title, such 
    pretender, &lt;i&gt;after ezamination and judgment&lt;/i&gt; by an extraordinary 
    commission to be nominated by the Queen, and consisting of at least 
    twenty-four privy councillors and lords of Parliament assisted by the chief 
    judges, should be excluded from the succession, and that, on proclamation of 
    the sentence and direction by the Queen, all subjects might and should 
    pursue the offender to death. If the Queen were murdered, the lords of the 
    Council at the time of her death, or the majority of them, should join to 
    themselves at least twelve other lords of Parliament not making title to the 
    crown, and the chief judges; and if, after examination, they should come to 
    the above-mentioned conclusion, they should without delay, by all forcible 
    and possible means, prosecute the guilty persons to death, and should have 
    power to raise and use such forces as should in that behalf be needful and 
    convenient; and no subjects should be liable to punishment for anything done 
    according to the tenor of the Statute. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Here, then, was a legal way provided by which 
    the Protestant ministers might act against Mary if Elizabeth were murdered. 
    They were in fact created a Provisional Government, with power to exclude 
    Mary from the throne. Whether they would have the courage or strength to do 
    so remained to be seen; but they would at least have formal law on their 
    side. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;It had never entered into Mary's plans to 
    wait for Elizabeth's natural death. She therefore read the new Act as a 
    sentence of exclusion. Another blow soon fell on her. In 1584, elated by her 
    son's victory over the raiders of Ruthven, and believing that he was willing 
    to recognise her joint sovereignty and cooperate with a Guise invasion, she 
    had scornfully refused the last overtures that Elizabeth ever made to her. 
    She now learnt that he had never intended to accept association with her, 
    and that he had urged Elizabeth not to release her. In the following year he 
    had accepted an annual pension of £4000 with some grumbling at its amount; 
    and a defensive alliance was at length concluded between the two countries, 
    Mary's name not being mentioned in the treaty (July 1586). &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;As the prospects of the Scottish Queen became 
    darker both in England and her own country, she grew more desperate and 
    reckless. Early in 1586, Walsingham contrived a way of regularly inspecting 
    all her most secret correspondence. He soon discovered that she was 
    encouraging Babington's plot for assassinating Elizabeth. Some of the 
    conspirators, though avowed Catholics, had offices in the royal household; 
    such was Elizabeth's easy-going confidence. It was hoped that Parma would at 
    the moment of the murder land troops on the east coast. Mendoza, now Spanish 
    ambassador in Paris, warmly encouraged the project. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The Scottish Queen was now in the case 
    contemplated by the Statute of the previous year. But it required all the 
    urgency of the Council to prevail with Elizabeth to have her brought to 
    trial. Elizabeth's whole conduct shows that she would even now have 
    preferred to deal with her rival as she did in the inquiry into the Darnley 
    murder. She would have been content to discredit her, to expose her guilt, 
    and, if possible, to bring her to her knees confessing her crimes and 
    pleading for mercy. But Mary was not of the temper to confess. Humiliation 
    and effacement were to her worse than death. She chose to brazen it out with 
    a well-grounded confidence that, as long as she asserted her innocence, 
    people would always be found to believe in it, let the evidence be what it 
    would. Besides, long impunity had convinced her that Elizabeth did not dare 
    to take her life. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;There was nothing for it, therefore, but to 
    bring her to trial. A Special Commission was nominated under the provisions 
    of the Statute of 1585, consisting of forty-five persons--peers, privy 
    councillors, and judges--who proceeded to Fotheringay Castle, whither Mary 
    had been removed. She at first refused their jurisdiction; but on being 
    informed that they would proceed in her absence, she appeared before them 
    under protest (14 October 1586). After sitting at Fotheringay for two days, 
    the Court adjourned to Westminster, where it pronounced her guilty (25 
    October). A declaration was added that her disqualification for the 
    succession, which followed by the Statute, did not affect any rights that 
    her son might possess. The verdict was immediately known; but its 
    proclamation was deferred till Parliament could be consulted. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;A general election had been held while the 
    trial was going on, and Parliament met four days after its conclusion (29 
    October). The whole evidence was gone into afresh. Not a word seems to have 
    been said in Mary's favour; and an address was presented to the Queen 
    praying for execution. If precedents were wanted for the capital punishment 
    of an anointed sovereign, there were the cases of Agag, Jezebel, Athaliah, 
    Deiotarus, king of Galatia, put to death by Julius CÊsar, Rhescuporis, king 
    of Thrace, by Tiberius, and Conradin by Charles of Anjou. In vain did 
    Elizabeth request them to reconsider their vote, and devise some other 
    expedient. Usually so deferential to her suggestions, they reiterated their 
    declaration that &amp;quot;the Queen's safety could no way be secured as long as the 
    Queen of Scots lived.&amp;quot; &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Elizabeth's hesitation has been generally set 
    down to hypocrisy. It has been taken for granted that she desired Mary's 
    death, and was glad to have it pressed upon her by her subjects. I believe 
    that her reluctance was most genuine. If not of generous disposition, 
    neither was she revengeful or cruel. She had no animosity against her 
    enemies. She lacked gall. She was never in any hurry to punish the 
    disaffected, or even to weed them out of her service. She rather prided 
    herself on employing them even about her person. Since her accession only 
    two English peers had been put to death, though several had richly deserved 
    it. She could affirm with perfect truth that, for the last fifteen years, 
    she, and she alone, had stood between Mary and the scaffold, and this at 
    great and increasing risk to her own life. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;There had, perhaps, been a time when to 
    destroy the prospect of a Catholic succession would have driven the 
    Catholics into rebellion. But that time had long gone by, as every one knew. 
    Elizabeth had only two dangers now to fear, invasion and assassination, the 
    latter being the most threatening. There would be little inducement to 
    attempt it if Mary were not alive to profit by it. Yet Elizabeth hesitated. 
    The explanation of her reluctance is very simple. She flinched from the 
    obloquy, the undeserved obloquy, which she saw was in store for her. 
    Careless to an extraordinary degree about her personal danger, she would 
    have preferred, as far as she was herself concerned, to let Mary live. It 
    was her ministers and the Protestant party who, for their own interest, were 
    forcing her to shed her cousin's blood; and it seemed to her unfair that the 
    undivided odium should fall, as she foresaw it would fall, on her alone.
    &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The suspense continued through December and 
    January. In the meantime it became abundantly clear that no foreign court 
    would interfere actively to save Mary's life. While she had been growing old 
    in captivity, new interests had sprung up, fresh schemes had been formed in 
    which she had no place. She stood in the way of half-a-dozen ambitions. 
    Everybody was weary of her and her wrongs and her pretensions. The Pope had 
    felt less interest of late in a princess whose rights, if established, would 
    pass to a Protestant heir. Philip could not intercede for her even if he had 
    desired to save her life. He was already at war with England, and, if she 
    had known it, not with any intention of supporting her claims. James by his 
    recent treaty with England had tacitly treated his mother as an enemy. Her 
    scheme for kidnapping and disinheriting him, found among her papers at 
    Chartley, had been promptly communicated to him. Decency required that he 
    should make a show of remonstrance and menace. But he had every reason to 
    desire her death, and his only thought was to use the opportunity for 
    extorting from Elizabeth a recognition of his title to the English crown and 
    an increase of his pension. He sent the Master of Gray to drive this 
    bargain. The very choice of his envoy, the man who had persuaded him to 
    break with his mother, showed Elizabeth how the land lay, and she did not 
    think it worth her while to bribe him in either way. The Marian nobles 
    blustered and called for war. Not one of them wanted to see Mary back in 
    Scotland or cared what became of her; but they had got an idea that Philip 
    would pay them for a plundering raid into England, and the doubly lucrative 
    prospect was irresistible. James, however, though pretending resentment and 
    really sulky at his rebuff, knew his own interests too well to quarrel with 
    England. What the action of the French King was is less certain. Openly he 
    remonstrated with considerable vigour and persistence; not entering into the 
    question of Mary's guilt, but protesting against the punishment of a Queen 
    and a member of his family. Probably his efforts, so far as they went, were 
    sincere, for he instructed his ambassador to bribe the English ministers if 
    possible to save her life. But it was evident that, however offended Henry 
    III might be by the execution of his sister-in-law, he would not be provoked 
    into playing the game of Spain. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;A warrant for the execution had been drawn 
    soon after the adjournment of Parliament, and all through December and 
    January Elizabeth's ministers kept urging her to sign it. At length, when 
    the Scotch and French ambassadors were gone, and with them the last excuse 
    for delay, she signed it in the presence of Davison (who had lately been 
    made co-secretary with Walsingham), and directed him to have it sealed (1 
    February). What else passed between them on that occasion must always remain 
    uncertain, because Davison's four written statements, and his answers at his 
    trial, differ in important particulars not only from the Queen's account but 
    from one another. So much, however, will to most persons who examine the 
    evidence be very clear. Elizabeth meant the execution to take place. There 
    is no reason to doubt Davison's statement that she &amp;quot;forbade him to trouble 
    her any further, or let her hear any more thereof till it was done, seeing 
    that for her part she had now performed all that either in law or reason 
    could be required of her.&amp;quot; But signing the warrant, as both of them knew, 
    was not enough. The formal delivery of it to some person, with direction to 
    carry it out, was the final step necessary. This, by Davison's own 
    admission, the Queen managed to evade. He saw that she wished to thrust the 
    responsibility upon him and Walsingham, and he suspected that she meant to 
    disavow them. Although, therefore, she had enjoined strict secrecy, he laid 
    the matter before Hatton and Burghley. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Burghley assembled in his own room the Earls 
    of Derby and Leicester, Lords Howard of Effingham, Hunsdon, and Cobham, 
    Knollys, Hatton, Walsingham, and Davison (3 February). (1) These ten were 
    probably the only privy councillors then at Greenwich. He laid before them 
    Davison's statement of what had passed between the Queen and himself at both 
    interviews. He said that she had done as much as could be expected of her; 
    that she evidently wished her ministers to take whatever responsibility 
    remained upon themselves without informing her; and that they ought to do 
    so. His proposal was agreed to. A letter was written to the Earls of Kent 
    and Shrewsbury instructing them to carry out the execution. This letter all 
    the ten signed, and it was at once despatched along with the warrant. They 
    quite understood that Elizabeth would disavow them. They saw that she wished 
    to have a pretext for saying that Mary had been put to death without her 
    knowledge, and before she had finally made up her mind. They were willing to 
    furnish her with this pretext. Of course there would be more or less of a 
    storm to keep up the make-believe. But ten privy councillors acting together 
    could not well be punished. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;On Thursday (9 February) the news of the 
    execution arrived. Elizabeth now learnt for the first time that the 
    responsibility which she had intended to fix on the two secretaries, one a 
    nobody and the other no favourite, had been shared by eight others of the 
    Council, including all its most important members. Storm at them the might 
    and did, and all the more furiously because they had combined for 
    self-protection. But to punish she whole ten was out of the question. Yet if 
    no one were punished, with what face could she tender her improbable 
    explanation to foreign courts? The unlucky Davison was singled out. He could 
    be charged with divulging what he had been ordered to keep secret and 
    misleading the others. He was tried before a Special Commission, fined 
    10,000 marks, and imprisoned for some time in the Tower. The fine was 
    rigidly exacted, and it reduced him to poverty. Burghley, whose tool he had 
    been almost as much as Elizabeth's, took pains to make his disgrace 
    permanent, because he wanted the secretaryship for his son, Robert Cecil.
    &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The strange thing is, that Elizabeth not only 
    expected her transparent falsehoods to be formally accepted as satisfactory, 
    but hoped that they would be really believed. Her letter to James was an 
    insult to his understanding. &amp;quot;I would you knew (though not felt) the extreme 
    dolour that overwhelms my mind, for that miserable accident which (far 
    contrary to my meaning) hath befallen. . . . I beseech you that as God and 
    many more know how innocent I am in this case, so you will believe me that 
    if I had bid [bidden] ought I would have bid [abided] by it. . . . Thus 
    assuring yourself of me that as I know this [the execution] was deserved, 
    yet if I had meant it I would never lay it on others' shoulders, no more 
    will I not damnify myself that thought it not.&amp;quot; &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Little as James cared what became of his 
    mother, it was impossible that he should not feel humiliated when he was 
    expected to swallow such a pill as this --and ungilded too. He had no 
    intention of going to war with the country of which he might now at any 
    moment become the legitimate King. But to let Elizabeth see that unless he 
    was paid he could be disagreeable, he winked at raids across the border and 
    coquetted with the faction who were inviting Philip to send a Spanish army 
    to Scotland. It was but a passing display of temper. The end of the year 
    (1587) saw him again drawing close to Elizabeth, and she was able to give 
    her undivided attention to the coming Armada. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;It cannot be seriously maintained that 
    because Mary was not an English subject she could not be lawfully tried and 
    punished for crimes committed in England. Those, if any there now be, who 
    adopt her own contention that, being an anointed Queen, she was not amenable 
    to any earthly tribunal, but to God alone, are beyond the reach of earthly 
    argument. The English government had a right to detain her as a dangerous 
    public enemy. She, on the other hand, had a right to resist such restraint 
    if she could, and she might have carried conspiracy very far without 
    incurring our blame. But for good reasons we draw a line at conspiracy to 
    murder. No government ever did or will let it pass unpunished. If Napoleon 
    at St. Helena had engaged in conspiracies for seizing the island, no one 
    could have blamed him, even though they might have involved bloodshed. But 
    if he had been convicted of plotting the assassination of Sir Hudson Lowe, 
    he would assuredly have been hanged. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;That the execution was a wise and opportune 
    stroke of policy can hardly be disputed. It broke up the Catholic party in 
    England at the moment when their disaffection was about to be tempted by the 
    appearance of the Armada. There had been a time when they had hopes of 
    James. But he was now known to be a stiff Protestant. Only the small 
    Jesuitical faction was prepared to accept Philip either as an heir of John 
    of Gaunt or as Mary's legatee. There was no other Catholic with a shadow of 
    a claim. The bulk of the party therefore ceased to look forward to a 
    restoration of the old religion, and rallied to the cause of national 
    independence. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;div align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;
      &lt;u&gt;&lt;b&gt;NOTE ON PAULET'S ALLEGED REFUSAL TO MURDER MARY&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;I have not alluded in the text to the story, 
    generally repeated by historians, that Elizabeth urged Paulet and Drury to 
    murder Mary privately. There is no doubt that, after the signature of the 
    warrant, Walsingham and Davison, by Elizabeth's direction, urged Paulet and 
    Drury to put Mary to death, and that they refused. But was it a private 
    murder that was meant or a public execution without delivery of the warrant? 
    There is nothing in any of Davison's statements inconsistent with the latter 
    and far more probable explanation. The blacker charge is founded solely on 
    the two letters which are generally accepted as being those which passed 
    between the secretaries and Paulet, but which may be confidently set down as 
    impudent forgeries. They were first given to the world in 1722 by Dr. George 
    Mackenzie, a violent Marian, who says that &lt;i&gt;a copy&lt;/i&gt; of them was sent 
    him by Mr. Urry of Christ Church, Oxford, and that they had been found among 
    Paulet's papers. Two years later they were printed by Hearne, an Oxford 
    Jacobite and Nonjuror, who says he got them from &lt;i&gt;a ropy&lt;/i&gt; furnished him 
    by a friend unnamed (Urry?), who told him he had &lt;i&gt;copied&lt;/i&gt; them in 1717 
    from a MS. letter-book of Paulet's. There is also a MS. &lt;i&gt;copy&lt;/i&gt; in the 
    Harleian collection, which contains erasures and emendations--an 
    extraordinary thing in a copy. It is said to be in the handwriting of the 
    Earl of Oxford himself. There is nothing to show whence he copied it. &lt;/font&gt;
    &lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;No one has ever seen the originals of these 
    letters. Neither has any one, except Hearne's unnamed friend, seen the &amp;quot;letterbook&amp;quot; 
    into which Paulet it; supposed to have copied them. Where had this 
    &amp;quot;letter-book&amp;quot; been before 1717? Where was it in 1717? What became of it 
    after 1717? To none of these questions is there any answer. The most 
    rational conclusion is that the &amp;quot;letter-book&amp;quot; never existed, and that the 
    letters were fabricated in the reign of George I. by some Oxford Jacobite, 
    who thought it easier and more prudent to circulate &lt;i&gt;copies&lt;/i&gt; than to 
    attempt an imitation of Paulet's well-known handwriting, with all the other 
    difficulties involved in forging a manuscript. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;But it may be said, Do not the letters fit in 
    with Davison's narrative? Of course they do. It was for the very purpose of 
    putting an odious meaning on that narrative that they were fabricated. It 
    was known that letters about putting Mary to death had passed. The real 
    letters had never been seen, and had doubtless been destroyed. Here 
    therefore was a fine opportunity for manufacturing spurious ones.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;/font&gt;
    &lt;hr&gt;
    &lt;p align=&quot;left&quot;&gt;&lt;font style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Notes:&lt;/b&gt; 1. 
    The remaining Privy Councillors were Archbishop Whitgift, Lord Chancellor 
    Bromley, the Earls of Shrewsbury and Warwick, Lord Buckburst, Sir James 
    Crofts, Sir Ralph Sadler, Sir Walter Mildmay, Sir Amyas Pualet, and the 
    Latin Secretary, Wolley.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&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%2fbeeslychapterten.html&quot;&gt;to Chapter 
    X: War with Spain: 1587-1603&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?us1108082627&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=1108082627&quot; ALT=1 WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1&gt;
</Content>
</Section>
</Archive>