Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

the Attorney General, said in the proceedings against Davison: “Elizabeth had neither consented to nor denied the execution of Mary, esteeming no clemency in the former, nor wisdom in the latter.” Ibid. (31) Page 338. A very remarkable account of the execution in the same Vol. XXXIV. of the Negociations d’Angleterre, referred to in Note 23, which was probably sent by the French ambassador. (32) Page 339. Aikin, vol. II., p. 106. I never knew her fetch a sigh but when the Queen of Scots was beheaded. Then, upon my knowledge, she shed many tears and sighs, manifesting her innocence that she never gave consent to the death of that Queen. Osborne's Mem. in the History of James I., vol. I., page 109. (33) Page 340. Camden, p. 531, 535. Thuanus, LXXXVI., p. 13. Spotswood, p. 335. Davison said, he considered what he had done to be meritorious and useful, and had believed it was agreeable to the Queen. What would have been said had any misfortune happened to her, while he kept in his pocket the order for Mary's execution. State Trials, vol. IV., p. 209. Great light is thrown on Davison's conduct, the opinions on it, and Elizabeth's view, by the following report of M. Chateauneuf, the French ambassador to Henry III., dated April, 1585, and which is in vol. LII. of the Memoires et Traités concernant l'Angleterre: “Walsingham made me many excuses on the death of the Queen of Scotland, and laid all the blame upon Davison, who, however, he said, had done nothing but what an honest man, the faithful servant of his Queen, and a friend of his country, was bound to do. That it was, however, true, that he had exceeded the Queen's orders, but after the opinion of the Council. Walsingham has even told me, that he had got the sentence of death passed under the great seal by the Chancellor, under the pretext that it was a commission for Ireland, so that the Chancellor had applied the seal without having read the contents. The Queen (he added,) was so incensed against all the members of the council, that she refused to see any of them, even Leicester, Burghley, and Hatton, because they had given credit to a mere assertion of Davison. To act thus without her knowledge, was equivalent to placing her under tutelage. “Nevertheless, as the execution was necessary for the welfare of Elizabeth and her kingdom, they thought it very strange that the King of France should be so offended at it.” (34) Page 343. Keralio, vol. IV., pp. 287—344. Hume, too, according to his letters to Robertson, (Sinclair's Life of Robertson,) thought that Mary was not innocent of the conspiracy. (35) Page 343. After Mary had designated Walsingham as her personal enemy, he took no further share in the transactions relative to the proceedings against her, either through delicacy, or because he was really ill. Lingard, vol. VIII., p. 284. (36) Page 343. It is also worthy of remark that Mary wrote, in 1574, to her ambassador: “I write no letters which others dictate. They may well draw them up, but I see them, to correct them if they are not conformable to my intentions.” (37) Page 343. They are more complete in Hardwick, vol. I., p. 224, than in Camden. In Haynes, p. 513, 533, and in Murdin's State Papers, there are also proofs that Mary knew of the conspiracy against Elizabeth, and corresponded with Babington. Turner, p. 638, says: “That Mary was fully involved in the conspiracy for invading Elizabeth, and for an internal insurrection to depose her, and that she patronized the plot of the Queen's assassination by Babington and his friends, there seems to be no reasonable doubt.” (38) Page 344. What Nau alleged to James in his defence: Ea: actis publicis minimi constat: he was the chief author of the accusation and of the proof founded on the letters which he declared to be genuine, and James was, most probably, of the same opinion. If Curl, on his deathbed, affirmed that he had not been unfaithful to Mary, the obvious meaning of this is, that he had not forged any letters. Besides, all the original papers were produced except the letters to and from Babington, which Mary caused to be burnt, and of which only copies were found. Curl warned Mary not to engage in such matters, but she answered, “that he should do what she ordered him.” Hardwicke, vol. I., p. 250. Chateauneuf too, in his report to Henry III., of the 30th of October, 1586, says, that letters écrites de sa main were shewn to Mary. (39) Page 344. On the other hand, it was very injudicious that Mary several times endeavoured bitterly to mortify her rival. Thus, in 1586, she wrote that the Countess of Shrewsbury had related to her the most scandalous circumstances respecting Elizabeth's conduct, her unbounded vanity, and foolish love of flattery. That she, Mary, had however forbidden her maids any more to ridicule the Queen of England in this respect, as in a farce. Murdin, p. 559. Mary, however, learnt, to her mortification, that the Countess of Shrewsbury calumniated her in the same manner. (40) Page 346. Margaret Lambrun, one of Mary's attendants, was arrested, disguised in man's clothes, just as she was going to shoot Elizabeth, who, however, pardoned her. Nares, vol. III., p. 329, gives a very interesting account of the transaction. (41) Page 347. As early as 1583 Philip thought of war, and sent spies to visit and examine the situation of the coast, harbours, forts, and rivers of England. Strada, vol. II., pp.9–530. (42) Page 347. The numbers even in the originals do not agree, because they relate to different periods. Turner, p. 668. (43) Page 349. Many persons, however, believed that the armament was intended only against the Netherlands, till

[ocr errors]

Walsingham contrived to discover the secret by his emissaries at Rome. (44) Page 349. Thuanus, LXXXIX., p. 9. Brodie, vol.I., p. 222. Keralio, vol. IV., p. 396. Sixtus promised half a million in gold, as soon as the Spanish fleet had landed in an English port; and the second half, as soon as the Duke of Parma should have gained a battle and have conquered London. Tempesti, vol. H., p. 317,-vol. II., p. 80. (45) Page 356. Thuanus, LXXXIX., p. 14. Camden, p. 573. Keralio, vol. IV., p. 430. Ferreras, under 1588, § 81, denies that the Duke of Medina Sidonia was banished from court, and affirms that Philip wrote him a letter of condolence. At Rome, the following was found fixed to the statue of Pasquin: “Pontificem mille annorum indulgentias largiturum esse de plenitudine potestatis suae, si quis certo sibi indicaverit, quid sit factum de Classe Hispanica. Quo abierit? In coelumne sublata an ad Tartara detrusa, vel in aere alicubi pendeat, an in aliquo mari fluctuat?” Nares, vol. III., p. 335. (46) Page 359. Memoirs of Essex, London, 1753, p. 12. Psalm lv., 23. The Alliance with the Netherlands was renewed in 1598, Camden, p. 769. But Burghley said to the deputies, that the King of France did right in giving to his subjects peace, which was imperatively necessary: “niettegenstaende de tractaten anders enthielden; seggende dat de selve hadden, ende moesten hebben civile interpretatien.” Leven van Olden, Barneveldt-Lövestein, 1658, p. 29. (47) Page 360. Thuan., vol. LXXXIX., p. 19. Leicester left debts, partly due to the public treasury, for the payment of which his effects were sold. Johnston, pp. 135—254. Life of Leicester, p. 281. (48) Page 360. Rymer, vol. VIII., pp. 1–57–101. Respecting an apparent love intrigue between Essex, who was married, and Miss Bridges, a young lady of the court, see Collins's Sydney Papers, vol. II., pp. 38–90. Ibid. p. 83, on some disputes of Southampton, Raleigh, &c. (49) Page 361. “Le plus petit compagnon d’Angleterre.” Mornay, vol. II., p. 137. (50) Page 363. In the year 1359, the Commons are mentioned in the Irish Parliament; till that time it was only an assembly of powerful men. Hallam, vol. III., p. 473. They were summoned, too, rather for single counties than for the whole kingdom. Gordon, vol. I., p. 325. Poyning's laws were beneficial, in comparison of the preceding want of law, but were by no means carried into effect in the whole country. Davies's Wars of Ireland, pp. 160–162. (51) Page 364. In 1602 she said to the French ambassador, Harley de Beaumont, “I was inclined to go myself to Ireland, but my council declared, that my people would never consent to my leaving this kingdom, and put me in mind that King James of Scotland might perhaps attempt to occupy my place during my absence. I pay no regard to grounds of personal danger, so highly do I prize my honour and the welfare of my subjects, (52) Page 365. Perrot had dropped some intemperate expressions respecting Elizabeth, was calumniated, accused of treason, and died in the Tower. Salmon's Review of State Trials, p. 39. (Hume, however, blames Perrot; he says, “But the most unhappy expedient employed in the government of Ireland, was that made use of, in 1585, by Sir John Perrot, at that time Lord Deputy: he put arms into the hands of the Irish inhabitants of Ulster, in order to enable them, without the assistance of the government, to repress the incursions of the Scotch islanders, by which these parts were much infested.”) Note of Translator. (53) Page 368. All this decided, but not that Essex surprised the Queen, en sa nudité de tête et son alopecie. Cayet. Chronol. septannaire, vol. II., p 234. According to the Aulicus Coquin

« EdellinenJatka »