The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (331 page)

But what ought to induce us to reject these three suppositions, is, that they must, all of them, be considered as bare possibilities: The partizans 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 profest 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, whereby 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.

[x]Queen Elizabeth was willing to have allowed Curle and Nau to be produced in the

trial, and writes to that purpose, to Burleigh and Walsingham, in her letter of the 7th of October, in Forbes’s MS. collections. She only says, that she thinks it needless, though she was willing to agree to it. The not confronting of the witnesses was not the result of design, but the practice of the age.

[y]Camden, p. 526.

PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

280

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4

[z]D’Ewes, p. 375.

[a]Ibid. p. 379.

[b]Ibid. p. 402, 403.

[NOTE [X]]
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 that 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 enterprize this dealing with those things which her majesty especially had taken into her own charge and direction. Whereupon Mr. Lewkenor spake, shewing 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 day 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 follow: Whether this council were not a place for any member of the same here assembled, freely and without controulment of any person or danger of laws, by bill or speech to utter any of the griefs of this PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

281

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4

commonwealth whatsoever, touching the service of God, the safety of the prince and this noble realm. Whether that great honour 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 over-rule the house in any matter or cause there in question, or whether he is to be ruled or over-ruled 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 note or 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 shewed 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, &c. 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 second of March, Mr. Cope, Mr. Lewkenor, Mr. Hurlston, 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 fourth 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 the house. To which speeches Mr.

Vice-chamberlain answered, that if the gentlemen were committed for matter within the compass of the privilege of this house, then there might be a petition; but if not, then we should give occasion to her majesty’s farther displeasure: And therefore advised to stay until they heard more, which could not be long: And farther, he said touching the book and the petition, her majesty had, for diverse good causes best known to herself, thought fit to suppress the same, without any farther 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 Townsend; 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 PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

282

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4

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?

[d]Camden, p. 528.

[e]Jebb, vol. ii. p. 293.

[f]Camden, p. 529. Jebb, vol. ii. p. 295.

[g]Camden, p. 494.

[h]Du Maurier.

[i]Spotswood, p. 351.

[k]Spotswood, p. 353.

[l]Spotswood, p. 354.

[m]Digges, p. 276. Strype, vol. ii. p. 48, 135, 136, 139.

[n]Camden, p. 533.

[o]Camden, p. 533.

[p]Ibid. p. 534.

[q]It appears by some letters published by Strype, vol. iii. book ii c. i. that Elizabeth

had not expressly communicated her intention to any of her ministers, not even to Burleigh: They were such experienced courtiers, that they knew they could not gratify her more than by serving her without waiting till she desired them.

[r]Camden, p. 534. Jebb, vol. ii. p. 301. MS. in the Advocates’ Library, p. 2. from the

Cott. Lib. Cal. c. 9.

[s]Jebb, vol. ii. p. 302.

[t]Jebb, vol. ii. p. 489.

[u]Jebb, vol. ii. p. 302, 626. Camden, p. 534.

[w]Jebb, vol. ii. p. 489.

[x]MS. p. 4. Jebb, vol. ii. p. 634. Strype, vol. iii. p. 384.

PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

283

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4

[y]MS. p. 8, 9, 10, 11. Strype, vol. iii. p. 385.

[z]MS. p. 15. Jebb, vol. ii. p. 307, 491, 637.

[a]Jebb, ibid.

[b]Jebb, p. 307, 492.

[c]Camden, p. 536. Strype, vol. iii. Appendix, p. 145. Jebb, vol. ii. p. 608.

[d]Camden, p. 536. Spotswood, p. 358.

[e]Camden, p. 538.

[f]Camden, p. 538. Strype, vol. iii. p. 375, 376. MS. in the Advocates’ Library, A. 3.

28. p. 17. from the Cott. Lib. Calig. c. 9. Biogr. Brit. p. 1625, 1627.

[g]Strype, vol. iii. p. 377. Spotswood.

[h]Camden, p. 540. Sir William Monson’s Naval Tracts in Churchill’s Voyages, vol.

iii. p. 156.

[i]Birch’s Memoirs, vol. i. p. 57.

[k]Bentivoglio, part ii. lib. 4. Strype, vol. iv. No. 246.

[l]Rymer, tom. xv. p. 66.

[m]Camden. Strype, vol. iii. p. 512.

[n]Bentivoglio, part 2. lib. 4.

[o]Monson, p. 256.

[p]Ibid. p. 268.

[q]Ibid. p. 157.

[r]Ibid. p. 321.

[s]Monson, p. 267.

[t]Lives of the Admirals, vol. i. p. 451.

[w]Strype, vol. iii. p. 524.

[u]She made him some promises which she never fulfilled, to give him a dukedom in

England, with suitable lands and revenue, to settle 5000 l. a-year on him, and pay him a guard, for the safety of his person. From a MS. of lord Royston’s.

PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

284

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4

[x]Stowe, p. 747.

[NOTE [Y]]
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 honour 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 dishonour shall 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 valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.