![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).
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.
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.
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.[6] She at
first refused their jurisdiction; but on being informed that they would
proceed in her absence, she appeared before them under protest (October
14, 1586). After sitting at Fotheringay for two days, the Court adjourned to
Westminster, where it pronounced her guilty (October 25).[7] A declaration
was added that her disqualification for the succession, which followed by](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-25-320.jpg)
![unfair that the undivided odium should fall, as she foresaw it would fall, on
her alone.
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.[8] 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.
A warrant for the execution had been drawn soon after the adjournment
of Parliament, and all through December and January Elizabeth’s ministers](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-27-320.jpg)
![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 (February 1). 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 “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.” 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.
Burghley assembled in his own room the Earls of Derby and Leicester,
Lords Howard of Effingham, Hunsdon, and Cobham, Knollys, Hatton,
Walsingham, and Davison (February 3). These ten were probably the only
privy councillors then at Greenwich.[9] 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.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-28-320.jpg)
![On Thursday (February 9) 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 she might and did, and all the more furiously
because they had combined for self-protection. But to punish the 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.
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. “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.”
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.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-29-320.jpg)
![telegraph. Every man knew whither he was to repair when their blaze
should be seen. The districts to be abandoned, the positions to be defended,
the bridges to be broken, were all marked out. Three armies, calculated to
amount in the aggregate to 73,000 men, were ordered to assemble in July.
Whether so many were actually mustered is doubtful. But Parma would
certainly have found himself confronted by forces vastly superior in
numbers to his own, and would have had, as he said, to fight battle after
battle. The bow had not been entirely abandoned, but the greater part of the
archers—two-thirds in some counties—had lately been armed with calivers.
What was wanting in discipline would have been to some extent made up
by the spontaneous cohesion of a force organised under its natural leaders,
the nobles and gentry of each locality, not a few of whom had seen service
abroad. But, after all, the greatest element of strength was the free spirit of
the people. England was, and had long been, a nation of freemen. There
were a few peers, and a great many knights and gentlemen. But there was
no noble caste, as on the Continent, separated by an impassable barrier of
birth and privilege from the mass of the people. All felt themselves fellow-
countrymen bound together by common sentiments, common interests, and
mutual respect.
This spirit of freedom—one might almost say of equality—made itself
felt still more in the navy, and goes far to account for the cheerful energy
and dash with which every service was performed. “The English officers
lived on terms of sympathy with their men unknown to the Spaniards, who
raised between the commander and the commanded absurd barriers of rank
and blood which forbade to his pride any labour but that of fighting. Drake
touched the true mainspring of English success when he once (in his voyage
round the world) indignantly rebuked some coxcomb gentlemen-
adventurers with, ‘I should like to see the gentleman that will refuse to set
his hand to a rope. I must have the gentlemen to hale and draw with the
mariners.’ ”[10] Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher were all born of humble parents.
They rose by their own valour and capacity. They had gentlemen of birth
serving under them. To Howard and Cumberland and Seymour they were
brothers-in-arms. The master of every little trading vessel was fired by their
example, and hoped to climb as high.
It is the pleasure of some writers to speak of Elizabeth’s naval
preparations as disgracefully insufficient, and to treat the triumphant result
as a sort of miracle. To their apprehension, indeed, her whole reign is one](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-35-320.jpg)
![long interference by Providence with the ordinary relations of cause and
effect. The number of royal ships as compared with those of private owners
in the fleet which met the great Armada—34 to 161—is represented as
discreditably small. By Englishmen of that day, it was considered to be
creditably large. Sir Edward Coke (who was thirty-eight at the time of the
Armada), writing under Charles I., when the royal navy was much larger,
says: “In the reign of Queen Elizabeth (I being then acquainted with this
business) there were thirty-three [royal ships] besides pinnaces, which so
guarded and regarded the navigation of the merchants, as they had safe vent
for their commodities, and trade and traffic flourished.”[11]
It seems to be overlooked that the royal navy, such as it was, was almost
the creation of Elizabeth. Her father was the first English king who made
any attempt to keep a standing navy of his own. He established the
Admiralty and the first royal dockyard. Under Edward and Mary the navy,
like everything else, went to ruin. Elizabeth’s ship-building, humble as it
seems to us, excited the admiration of her subjects, and was regarded as one
of the chief advances of her reign. The ships, when not in commission, were
kept in the Medway. The Queen personally paid the greatest attention to
them. They were always kept in excellent condition, and could be fitted out
for sea at very short notice. Economy was enforced in this, as in other
departments, but not at the expense of efficiency. The wages of officers and
men were very much augmented; but in the short periods for which crews
were enlisted, and in the victualling, there seems to have been unwise
parsimony in 1588. The grumbling of alarmists about unpreparedness,
apathy, stinginess, and red-tape was precisely what it is in our own day. We
know that some allowance is to be made for it.
The movements of the Armada were perfectly well known in England,
and all the dispositions to meet it at sea were completed in a leisurely
manner. Conferences were still going on at Ostend between English and
Spanish commissioners. On the part of Elizabeth there was sincerity, but not
blind credulity nor any disposition to make unworthy concessions.
Conferences quite as protracted have often been held between belligerents
while hostilities were being actively carried on. The large majority of
Englishmen were resolved to fight to the death against any invader. But, as
against Spain, there was not that eager pugnacity which a war with France
always called forth, except, perhaps, among the sea-rovers; and even they
would have contented themselves, if it had been possible, with the](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-36-320.jpg)
![unrecognised privateering which had so long given them the profits of war
with the immunities of peace. The rest of the nation respected their Queen
for her persevering endeavour to find a way of reconciliation with an
ancient ally, and to limit, in the meantime, the area of hostilities. They were
confident, and with good reason, that she would surrender no important
interest, and that aggressive designs would be met, as they had always been
met, more than half-way.
The story of the great victory is too well known to need repetition here.
But some comments are necessary. It is usual, for one reason or other, to
exaggerate the disparity of the opposing fleets, and to represent England as
only saved from impending ruin by the extraordinary daring of her seamen,
and a series of fortunate accidents. The final destruction of the Armada,
after the pursuit was over, was certainly the work of wind and sea. But if we
fairly weigh the available strength on each side, we shall see that the
English commanders might from the first feel, as they did feel, a reasonable
assurance of defeating the invaders.
Let us first compare the strength of the fleets:
English. Ships. Tonnage. Guns. Mariners.
Royal 34 11850 837 6279
Private 163 17894 not stated 9506
197 29744 15785
Spanish. 132 59120 3165 8766
The Armada carried besides 21,855 soldiers.[12] The first thing that
strikes us is the immense preponderance in tonnage on the part of the
Spaniards, and in sailors on the part of the English. This really goes far to
explain the result. Nothing is more certain than that the Spanish ships,
notwithstanding their superior size, were for fighting and sailing purposes
very inferior to the English. It had always been believed that, to withstand
the heavy seas of the Atlantic, a ship should be constructed like a lofty
fortress. The English builders were introducing lower and longer hulls and a
greater spread of canvas. Their crews, as has always been the case in our
navy, were equally handy as sailors and gunners. The Spanish ships were
under-manned. The soldiers were not accustomed to work the guns, and
were of no use unless it came to boarding, which Howard ordered his](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-37-320.jpg)
![captains to avoid. The English guns, if fewer than the Spanish, were heavier
and worked by more practised men.[13] Their balls not only cut up the
rigging of the Spaniards but tore their hulls (which were supposed to be
cannon-proof), while the English ships were hardly touched. The slaughter
among the wretched soldiers crowded between decks was terrible. Blood
was seen pouring out of the lee-scuppers. “The English ships,” says a
Spanish officer, “were under such good management that they did with
them what they pleased.” The work was done almost entirely by the
Queen’s ships. “If you had seen,” says Sir William Winter, “the simple
service done by the merchants and coast ships, you would have said we had
been little helped by them, otherwise than that they did make a show.”
The principal and final battle was fought off Gravelines (July 29/Aug.
8). The Armada therefore did arrive at its destination, but only to show that
the general plan of the invasion was an impracticable one. The superiority
in tonnage and number of guns on the morning of that day, though not what
it had been when the fighting began a week before, was still immense, if
superiority in those particulars had been of any use. But with this battle the
plan of Philip was finally shattered. So far from being in a condition to
cover Parma’s passage, the Spanish admiral was glad to escape as best he
could from the English pursuit.
During the eight days’ fight, be it observed, the Armada had experienced
no unfavourable weather or other stroke of ill-fortune. The wind had been
mostly in the west, and not tempestuous. After the last battle, when the
crippled Spanish ships were drifting upon the Dutch shoals, it opportunely
shifted, and enabled them to escape into the North Sea.
It would not be easy to find any great naval engagement in which the
victors suffered so little. In the last battle, when they came to close quarters,
they had about sixty killed. During the first seven days their loss seems to
have been almost nil. One vessel only—not belonging to the Queen—
became entangled among the enemy, and succumbed. Except the master of
this vessel not one of the captains was killed from first to last. Many men of
rank were serving in the fleet. It is not mentioned that one of them was so
much as wounded.
Looking at all these facts, we can surely come to only one conclusion.
Philip’s plan was hopeless from the first. Barring accidents, the English
were bound to win. On no other occasion in our history was our country so](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-38-320.jpg)
![well prepared to meet her enemies. Never was her safety from invasion so
amply guaranteed. The defeat of the Great Armada was the deserved and
crowning triumph of thirty years of good government at home and wise
policy abroad; of careful provision for defence and sober abstinence from
adventure and aggression.
Of the land preparations it is impossible to speak with equal confidence,
as they were never put to the test. If the Spaniards had landed, Leicester’s
militia would no doubt have experienced a bloody defeat. London might
have been taken and plundered. But Parma himself never expected to
become master of the country without the aid of a great Catholic rising.
This, we may affirm with confidence, would not have taken place on even
the smallest scale. Overwhelming forces would soon have gathered round
the Spaniards. They would probably have retired to the coast, and there
fortified some place from which it would have been difficult to dislodge
them as long as they retained the command of the sea.
Such seems to have been the utmost success which, in the most
favourable event, could have attended the invasion. A great disaster, no
doubt, for England, and one for which Elizabeth would have been judged
by history with more severity than justice; for Englishmen have always
chosen to risk it, down to our own time.[14] No government which insisted
on making adequate provision for the military defence of the country would
have been tolerated then, or, to all appearance, would be tolerated now. We
have always trusted to our navy. It were to be wished that our naval
superiority were as assured now as when we defeated the Armada.
The arrangements for feeding the soldiers and sailors were very
defective. A praiseworthy system of control had been introduced to check
waste and peculation in time of peace. Of course it did not easily adapt
itself to the exigencies of war. Military operations are sure to suffer where a
certain, or rather uncertain, amount of waste and peculation is not risked.
We have not forgotten the “horrible and heart-rending” sufferings of our
army in the Crimea, which, like those of Elizabeth’s fleet, had to be relieved
by private effort. In the sixteenth century the lot of the soldier and sailor
everywhere was want and disease, varied at intervals by plunder and excess.
Philip’s soldiers and sailors were worse off than Elizabeth’s, though he
grudged no money for purposes of war.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-39-320.jpg)
![Those who profess to be scandalised by the appointment of Leicester to
the command of the army should point out what fitter choice could have
been made. He was the only great nobleman with any military experience;
and to suppose that any one but a great nobleman could have been
appointed to such a command is to show a profound ignorance of the ideas
of the time. He had Sir John Norris, a really able soldier, as his marshal of
the camp. After all, no one has alleged that he did not do his duty with
energy and intelligence. The story that the Queen thought of making him
her “Lieutenant in the government of England and Ireland,” but was
dissuaded from it by Burghley and Hatton, rests on no authority but that of
Camden, who is fond of repeating spiteful gossip about Leicester. No
sensible person will believe that she meant to create a sort of Grand Vizier.
She may have thought of making him what we should call “Commander-in-
Chief.” There would be much to say for such a concentration of authority
while the kingdom was threatened with invasion. The title of “Lieutenant”
was a purely military one, and began to be applied under the Tudors to the
commanders of the militia in each county. Leicester’s title for the time was
“Lieutenant and Captain-General of the Queen’s armies and companies.”
But we find him complaining to Walsingham that the patent of Hunsdon,
the commander of the Midland army, gave him independent powers. “I shall
have wrong if he absolutely command where my patent doth give me
power. You may easily conceive what absurd dealings are likely to fall out
if you allow two absolute commanders” (28 July). Camden’s story is
probably a confused echo of this dispute.
Writers who are loth to admit that the trust, the gratitude, the enthusiastic
loyalty which Elizabeth inspired were the first and most important cause of
the great victory, have sought to belittle the grandest moment of her life by
pointing out that the famous speech at Tilbury was made after the battle of
Gravelines. But the dispersal of the Armada by the storm of August 5th was
not yet known in England. Drake, writing on the 8th and 10th, thinks that it
is gone to Denmark to refit, and begs the Queen not to diminish any of her
forces. The occasion of the speech on the 10th seems to have been the
arrival of a post on that day, while the Queen was at dinner in Leicester’s
tent, with a false alarm that Parma had embarked all his forces, and might
be expected in England immediately.[15]
But the Lieutenant-General had reached the end of his career. Three
weeks after the Tilbury review he died of “a continued fever,” at the age of](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-40-320.jpg)
![citizens. Essex was such a person. Instead of being thankful that he had
escaped the punishment which under most sovereigns he would have
suffered, he entered into criminal plots for coercing, if not overthrowing,
the Queen. He urged the Scotch King to enforce the recognition of his title
by arms. He tried to persuade Mountjoy, his successor in Ireland, to carry
his army to Scotland to co-operate with James. These intrigues were not
known to the Government. But it did not escape observation that he was
collecting men of the sword in the neighbourhood of his house; that he was
holding consultations with suspected nobles and gentlemen (some of whom
were afterwards engaged in the Gunpowder Plot); that the Puritan clergy
were preaching and praying for his cause; and that there was a certain
ferment in the city. Essex was therefore summoned to attend before the
Council. Instead of obeying, he flew to arms, with Lords Southampton,
Rutland, Sandys, Cromwell, and Monteagle, and about 300 gentlemen. But
the citizens of London did not respond to his appeal, and the insurrection
was easily suppressed, less than a dozen persons being slain on both sides
(February 8, 1601). A more senseless and profligate attempt to overthrow a
good government it would be difficult to find in history. It was not dignified
by any semblance of principle, and it would sufficiently stamp the character
of its author, even if it stood alone as an evidence of his vanity, egotism,
and want of common sense.
The trial and execution of the principal malefactor followed as a matter
of course and without delay (February 25). It would have been scandalous
to spare him. Elizabeth had once been fond of him, and had no reason to be
ashamed of it. To talk of her “passion” and her “amorous inclination,” as
Hume and others have done, is revolting and malignant nonsense. It is
creditable to old age when it can take pleasure in the unfolding of bright
and promising youth. But royal favour was not good for such a man as
Essex. It developed the worst features in his showy but faulty character. As
he steadily deteriorated, her regard cooled; but so much of it remained that
she tried to amend him by chastisement, “ad correctionem” as she said,
“non ad ruinam.” She had long before warned him that, though she had put
up with much disrespect to her person, he must not touch her sceptre, or he
would be dealt with according to the law of England. She was as good as
her word, and, though the memory of it was painful to her, there is not the
smallest evidence that she ever repented of having allowed the law to take
its course.[16] Only three of the accomplices of Essex were punished](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-52-320.jpg)
![to sell crown lands to the value of £372,000. Parliament, which had voted
the usual single subsidies without complaint, grumbled and pretended
poverty when she asked for three and even four.[17] Bacon’s famous
outburst (1593) about gentlemen having to sell their plate and farmers their
brass pots to pay the tax, was a piece of claptrap. The nation was, relatively
to former times, rolling in wealth. But the old belief had still considerable
strength—that government being the affair of the King, not of his subjects,
he should provide for its expenses out of his hereditary income, just as they
paid their private expenses out of their private incomes; that he had no more
claim to dip into their pockets than they had to dip into his; and that a
subsidy, as its name imports, was an occasional and extraordinary
assistance furnished as a matter not of duty but of good-will.
This might have been healthy doctrine when kings were campaigning on
the Continent for personal or dynastic objects. It was out of place when a
large expenditure was indispensable for the interests and safety of the
country. The grumbling, therefore, about taxation towards the end of the
reign was unreasonable and discreditable to the grumblers. The Queen met
them with her usual good sense. She explained to them—though, as she
correctly said, she was under no constitutional obligation to do so—how the
money went, what she had spent on the Spanish war, on Ireland, and in
loans to the Dutch and the French King. The plea was unanswerable. Her
private expenditure was on a very modest scale. In particular she had never
indulged in that besetting and costly sin of princes, palace-building; and this
at a time when the noble mansions which still testify to the wealth of the
England of that day were rising in every county. Her only extravagance was
dress. Some have carped at her collection of jewelry. But jewels, like the
silver balustrades of Frederick William I., were a mode of hoarding, and in
her later years she reconverted jewels into money to meet the expenses of
the State. Modern writers, who so airily blame her for not subsidising more
liberally her Scotch, Dutch, and French allies, would find it difficult, if they
condescended to particulars, to explain how she was able to give them as
much money as she did.
It is common to make much of the debate on monopolies in the last
Parliament of Elizabeth (1601), as showing the rise of a spirit of resistance
to the royal prerogative. I do not think that the report of that debate would
convey such an impression to any one reading it without preconceived
views. None of the speakers contested the prerogative. They only](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/11734-250604105558-19f80942/85/eBook-PDF-Comprehensive-Nanoscience-and-Nanotechnology-2nd-Edition-54-320.jpg)
(eBook PDF) Comprehensive Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 2nd Edition
- 1. (eBook PDF) Comprehensive Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 2nd Edition download https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-comprehensive- nanoscience-and-nanotechnology-2nd-edition/ Download full version ebook from https://ebookluna.com
- 2. We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click the link to download now, or visit ebookluna.com to discover even more! Intelligent Nanotechnology: Merging Nanoscience and Artificial Intelligence 1st Edition - eBook PDF https://ebookluna.com/download/intelligent-nanotechnology-merging- nanoscience-and-artificial-intelligence-ebook-pdf/ (eBook PDF) DNA in Supramolecular Chemistry and Nanotechnology https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-dna-in-supramolecular-chemistry- and-nanotechnology/ Progress in Heterocyclic Chemistry Volume 29 1st Edition - eBook PDF https://ebookluna.com/download/progress-in-heterocyclic-chemistry-ebook- pdf/ (eBook PDF) Translational Medicine in CNS Drug Development, Volume 29 https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-translational-medicine-in-cns-drug- development-volume-29/
- 3. (eBook PDF) Neuromodulation Comprehensive Textbook of Principles, Technologies, and Therapies 2nd Edition https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-neuromodulation-comprehensive- textbook-of-principles-technologies-and-therapies-2nd-edition/ Biogenic Sustainable Nanotechnology: Trends and Progress 1st Edition - eBook PDF https://ebookluna.com/download/biogenic-sustainable-nanotechnology-trends- and-progress-ebook-pdf/ (eBook PDF) School Nursing: A Comprehensive Text 2nd Edition https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-school-nursing-a-comprehensive- text-2nd-edition/ Nanotechnology for Microelectronics and Photonics. A volume in Nanophotonics 2nd Edition Edition José Martínez-Duart And Raúl Martín-Palma (Auth.) - eBook PDF https://ebookluna.com/download/nanotechnology-for-microelectronics-and- photonics-a-volume-in-nanophotonics-ebook-pdf/ Polymer Science and Nanotechnology: Fundamentals and Applications 1st Edition Ravin Narain - eBook PDF https://ebookluna.com/download/polymer-science-and-nanotechnology- fundamentals-and-applications-ebook-pdf/
- 6. EDITORS IN CHIEF David L. Andrews is Professor of Chemical Physics at the University of East Anglia, located in the cathedral city of Norwich in the United Kingdom. He heads a well-established research group pursuing the development and applications of fundamental, photon-based theory for widely ranging photonic and nanoscale processes, encompassing molecular chirality, multiphoton spec- troscopy, nonlinear optics, quantum optics, energy transfer, optical nanomanipulation, inter- molecular interactions, structured light and optical vortices. His current tally of research publications approaches 400 papers, alongside twenty books: he is the author of a widely adopted textbook on Lasers in Chemistry, edited volumes including Structured Light and its Applications, another on the Angular Momentum of Light, and he is co-author of an Introduction to Photon Science and Technology. The other main pillar of Andrews’s career is conference organisation; he has instigated and championed numerous conferences, including the Nanophotonics conference at Photonics Europe, which has now become the largest of its kind. He enjoys travel and is a widely known speaker, who has given invited lectures in twenty different countries around the world. Andrews is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institute of Physics, the Optical Society of America, and SPIE – the international optics and photonics society. Professor Rob Lipson received his Ph.D. in Physics in 1985 from the University of Toronto, and did post-doctoral work in the Spectroscopy group at the National Research Council of Canada. He was a faculty member in the Department of Chemistry at Western University from 1986 until 2010; serving as departmental Chair from 2000 to 2005, and Director of the Western Institute for Nanomaterials Science from 2004-2009. He joined the University of Victoria as Professor of Chemistry and Dean of Science in 2010, and was reappointed for a second term as Dean in 2015. Externally, Dr. Lipson served as Senior Editor of the Canadian Journal of Chemistry (2004-12). He was a former member and Chair of the NSERC Chemistry Grant Selection Committee 026 (2004-06), and a member of the NSERC E. W. R. Steacie Fellowship Committee (2008-10). He is currently in his second term as a member of the federal Tri-Council Panel for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Dr. Lipson has published extensively in the fields of laser spectroscopy, photonics materials and applications related to interference litho- graphy, and analytical technique development for MALDI mass spectrometry. He is a Fellow of the Chemical Institute of Canada. Thomas Nann is an experienced teacher and researcher in the area of Nanoscience and tech- nology. In 1997, he completed a PhD in Physical Chemistry (Electrochemistry) and started working with nanomaterials shortly afterwards. He held teaching, research and leadership positions at the Universities of Freiburg (Germany), East Anglia (UK), South Australia, and Wellington (New Zealand). Thomas’s research focusses on the wet-chemical synthesis of various nanomaterials and their application in the areas of energy and health. His electrochemical roots and nanomaterials expertise come together in his research on photovoltaic and photocatalytic systems, as well as different types of batteries. In the nanomedicine area, he is mainly interested in using nanoparticles as contrast agents and markers. Thomas is passionate about teaching and leading students and researchers to undertake excellent research with real-world impact. vii
- 8. VOLUME EDITORS Duncan H Gregory is the WestCHEM chair of Inorganic Materials, University of Glasgow having previously been an EPSRC Advanced Fellow, Lecturer and Reader in Materials Chemistry at the University of Nottingham. He is currently a Visiting Professor at Kyushu University and was Vice President of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Materials Chemistry Division from 2009- 2014. He is the author of more than 150 papers, patents and book chapters and his research interests focus on the synthesis and characterization of new solids including sustainable energy materials (e.g. Li batteries, fuel storage, thermoelectrics), inorganic nanomaterials and the solid- state chemistry of carbides, hydrides, nitrides and chalcogenides. His research also embraces the sustainable production of materials including the microwave synthesis and processing of solids. He won the inaugural RSC Sustainable Energy Award in 2009, is the founding Editor-in-Chief of Inorganics and is an Associate Editor of Materials for Renewable and Sustainable Energy. Professor Richard Tilley is the Director of Electron Microscope Unit and a Professor in Chemistry at UNSW. His research is focused on the solution synthesis of nanoparticles and quantum dots for applications ranging from catalysis to biomedical imaging. He graduated with a Masters of Chemistry from Oxford University and did his PhD in the Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge. He was then a Postdoctoral Fellow for two years at the Toshiba basic R&D Center, Japan followed by 10 years as an academic at Victoria University of Wellington. Renee Goreham completed a PhD in 2014 at the University of South Australia on the topic of NanoBiotechnology. Since completion, she has held post-doctoral positions at Flinders Uni- versity, University of South Australian, and Victoria University of Wellington. Recently, she was accepted a permanent lecturing position at Victoria University of Wellington in physical chemistry. Her research niche uses nanotechnology for biomedical applications. With two main areas of interest; (1) using nanosized extracellular vesicles (EVs) for detection of disease or as drug delivery agents and (2) metal nanoclusters stabilised by biomolecules (such as DNA and protein). Satoshi Kawata has been a Professor of Applied Physics at Osaka University since 1993 and a Chief Scientist at RIKEN since 2001. He is now the Professor Emeritus of Osaka University and the Honorary Scientist of RIKEN. He has developed a number of unconventional advanced methods in optical microscopy, photolithography, and spectroscopy, including two-photon 3D nano-fabrication based on polymerization, 3D optical data-storage with two-photon photo- isomerization, tip-enhanced near-field Raman scattering microscopy, plasmonic 3D color holography, and evanescent-field optical force. He is a Fellow of OSA, SPIE, IOP, and JSAP. He served as the president of the Japan Society of Applied Physics and the Spectroscopic Society of Japan and the Editor of Optics Communications. He has published B 500 research papers (Web of Science), and authored and/or edited more than 30 books. ix
- 9. David S. Bradshaw is an honorary research associate at the University of East Anglia in the UK. He graduated twice from the same university, first receiving a Master’s degree in chemical physics (which included a year at the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada) and then a PhD in theoretical chemical physics. Overall, David has co-written over 80 research papers, all based on molecular quantum electrodynamics. In addition, he has co-authored two books: one on optical nanomanipulation and the other on nanophotonics. His long running research interests include resonance energy transfer, optical binding and nonlinear optics. David is a Member of both the Institute of Physics and the Royal Society of Chemistry. x Volume Editors
- 10. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 1 Sokhrab B. Aliev Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel Omar Azzaroni INIFTA-CONICET, National University of La Plata, La Plata, Argentina Paul Bazylewski University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada George Bepete Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom Poulami Chakraborty S.N. Bose National Center for Basic Sciences, Kolkata, India Haitao Chen National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China Karl S. Coleman Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom Cintia B. Contreras Instituto de Nanosistemas, National University of San Martin, San Martin, Argentina; and INIFTA- CONICET, National University of La Plata, La Plata, Argentina Tilak Das University of Milan-Bicocca Studies, Milano, Italy D. Dorfs Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy A. Falqui Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy Giovanni Fanchini University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada Cathrine Frandsen Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark C. Giannini CNR-Istituto di Cristallografia (IC), Bari, Italy D.M. Guldi Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen–Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany Pham Nam Hai Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan Mikkel F. Hansen Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Parisa Jafarzadeh University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada Tian Jiang National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China Andrei N. Khlobystov University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom Holger Kleinke University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada R. Krahne Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy S. Kudera Max Planck Institute for Metals Research, Stuttgart, Germany Geoffry Laufersky Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; and The MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, Wellington, New Zealand Guixin Li Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China X. Liu National University of Singapore, Singapore L. Manna Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy N. Martin Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain L. Maus Max Planck Institute for Metals Research, Stuttgart, Germany Steen Mørup Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Thomas Nann University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia; and The MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, Wellington, New Zealand W.J. Parak CIC Biomagune, San Sebastian, Spain xi
- 11. W.J. Parak Philipps Universitȧt Marburg, Marburg, Germany B. Pelaz Philipps Universitȧt Marburg, Marburg, Germany P. del Pino CIC Biomagune, San Sebastian, Spain Guy Rahamim Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel Graham A. Rance University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom M. Remskar Jozef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia Tanusri Saha-Dasgupta S.N. Bose National Center for Basic Sciences, Kolkata, India; and Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Kolkata, India Galo J.A.A. Soler-Illia Instituto de Nanosistemas, National University of San Martin, San Martin, Argentina Cheryl Sturm University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada Yutao Tang Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China Nikita Toropov ITMO University, St. Petersburg, Russia Tigran Vartanyan ITMO University, St. Petersburg, Russia F. Wang National University of Singapore, Singapore Stephanie M. Willerth University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada; and International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, Vancouver, BC, Canada D. Zanchet Laboratório Nacional de Luz Síncrotron, Campinas-SP, Brazil M. Zanella Philipps Universitȧt Marburg, Marburg, Germany Q. Zhang Philipps Universitȧt Marburg, Marburg, Germany David Zitoun Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel xii List of Contributors to Volume 1
- 12. CONTENTS OF ALL VOLUMES VOLUME 1 1.01 Physical Chemistry of Nanoparticle Syntheses Geoffry Laufersky and Thomas Nann 1 1.02 Quantum Dots: Synthesis and Characterization D Dorfs, R Krahne, A Falqui, L Manna, C Giannini, and D Zanchet 17 1.03 Noble Metal Nanoparticles: Synthesis and Optical Properties Nikita Toropov and Tigran Vartanyan 61 1.04 Magnetic Nanoparticles Steen Mørup, Mikkel F Hansen, and Cathrine Frandsen 89 1.05 III-V and Group-IV-Based Ferromagnetic Semiconductors for Spintronics Pham Nam Hai 141 1.06 Inorganic Core–Shell Nanoparticles S Kudera, L Maus, M Zanella, B Pelaz, Q Zhang, WJ Parak, P del Pino, and WJ Parak 171 1.07 Functionalized Fullerenes: Synthesis and Functions DM Guldi and N Martin 187 1.08 Carbon Nanotubes: Electronic Structure and Spectroscopy George Bepete and Karl S Coleman 205 1.09 Interactions Between Nanoparticles and Carbon Nanotubes: Directing the Self-Assembly of One-Dimensional Superstructures Graham A Rance and Andrei N Khlobystov 219 1.10 Inorganic Nanotubes beyond Cylindrical Matter M Remskar 237 1.11 Inorganic Nanowires for Sensing Applications Guy Rahamim, Sokhrab B Aliev, and David Zitoun 255 1.12 Electrospun Nanofibers for Diverse Applications Stephanie M Willerth 275 1.13 Graphene: Properties and Applications Paul Bazylewski and Giovanni Fanchini 287 1.14 Nonlinear Nanophotonics With 2D Transition Metal Dichalcogenides Haitao Chen, Yutao Tang, Tian Jiang, and Guixin Li 305 1.15 MXene: A New Trend in 2D Materials Science Poulami Chakraborty, Tilak Das, and Tanusri Saha-Dasgupta 319 1.16 Use of Confinement Effects in Mesoporous Materials to Build Tailored Nanoarchitectures Cintia B Contreras, Omar Azzaroni, and Galo JAA Soler-Illia 331 1.17 Thermoelectric Nanomaterials Cheryl Sturm, Parisa Jafarzadeh, and Holger Kleinke 349 1.18 Rare-Earth Doped Upconversion Nanophosphors F Wang and X Liu 359 xiii
- 13. VOLUME 2 2.01 Microemulsion Methods for Synthesis of Nanostructured Materials Sonalika Vaidya and Ashok K Ganguli 1 2.02 Nucleic Acid Nanotechnology Arun Richard Chandrasekaran 13 2.03 Metal-Organic Frameworks: New Functional Materials and Applications Peiyu Cai, Wenmiao Chen, Gregory S Day, Hannah F Drake, Elizabeth A Joseph, Zachary T Perry, Zhifeng Xiao, and Hong-Cai Zhou 35 2.04 Structure and Chemistry of 2D Materials Min-Ho Kang, Donghoon Lee, Jongbaek Sung, Jihoon Kim, Byung Hyo Kim, and Jungwon Park 55 2.05 Catalysis by Supported Gold Nanoparticles Josep Albero and Hermenegildo García 91 2.06 Functionalisation of Fullerenes for Biomedical Applications Ilija Rašović and Kyriakos Porfyrakis 109 2.07 Functionalization of Carbon Nanostructures Paramita Karfa, Shrabani De, Kartick C Majhi, Rashmi Madhuri, and Prashant K Sharma 123 2.08 Thermoresponsive Core-Shell Nanoparticles and Their Potential Applications Martina Schroffenegger and Erik Reimhult 145 2.09 Ligands for Nanoparticles Z Hens, I Moreels, B Fritzinger, JC Martins, and RJ Groarke 171 2.10 Assembly of Nanoparticles S Srivastava, NA Kotov, and RJ Groarke 201 2.11 Self-Assembly of Soft Nanoparticles Tai-Lam Nghiem, Andrea Steinhaus, Ramzi Chakroun, Stefanie Tjaberings, Xiaolian Qiang, Chen Chen, Alexander Tjaberings, Giada Quintieri, and André H Gröschel 217 2.12 Layer by Layer Assemble of Colloid Nanomaterial and Functional Multilayer Films for Energy Storage and Conversion Lei Zhou, Wellars Utetiwabo, Renjie Chen, and Wen Yang 255 2.13 ABC Toxins: Self-Assembling Nanomachines for the Targeted Cellular Delivery of Bioactive Proteins Irene R Chassagnon, Sarah J Piper, and Michael J Landsberg 279 2.14 Directed On-Surface Growth of Covalently-Bonded Molecular Nanostructures Maryam Abyazisani, Vishakya Jayalatharachchi, and Jennifer MacLeod 299 2.15 Recent Development in Focused Ion Beam Nanofabrication Charlie Kong, Soshan Cheong, and Richard D Tilley 327 2.16 Nanoimprint Lithography for Nanomanufacturing Khairudin Mohamed 357 2.17 Optical Lithography Patrick Naulleau 387 VOLUME 3 3.01 DNA Nanostructures Ashley R Connolly, Nianjia Seow, Renzo A Fenati, and Amanda V Ellis 1 xiv Contents of all Volumes
- 14. 3.02 Extracellular Vesicles: Nature's Own Nanoparticles Renee V Goreham, Zeineb Ayed, Deanna Ayupova, and Garima Dobhal 27 3.03 Biomimetic Membranes Jakob Andersson and Ingo Köper 49 3.04 Antibacterial Nanoparticles Gemma C Cotton, Natalie R Lagesse, Liam S Parke, and Carla J Meledandri 65 3.05 Atomic Force Microscopy Applied to Biological Systems: Novel Applications and Advanced Experimental Methods Christopher T Gibson 83 3.06 Biosensing Agnieszka A Zuber, Elizaveta Klantsataya, and Akash Bachhuka 105 3.07 Nanoparticles at Fluid Interfaces: From Surface Properties to Biomedical Applications Catherine P Whitby 127 3.08 Photonic Nanoparticles for Cellular and Tissular Labeling Alexander P Jankowski, Caroline Pao, and Gilbert C Walker 147 3.09 Graphene Quantum Dots: Syntheses, Properties, and Biological Applications TA Tabish and S Zhang 171 3.10 Multifunctional Magnetic Nanoparticles: Design, Synthesis, and Biomedical Applications Tristan D Clemons, Roland H Kerr, and Alexander Joos 193 3.11 Porous Silicon Nanoparticles for Applications in Nano-medicine Morteza Hasanzadeh Kafshgari, Nicolas H Voelcker, and Frances J Harding 211 3.12 Cellular and Sub-Cellular Mechanics: Measurement of Material Properties Ankita Gangotra and Geoff R Willmott 227 VOLUME 4 4.01 Super Resolution Fluorescence Microscopy Alberto Diaspro, Paolo Bianchini, Francesca Cella Zanacchi, Luca Lanzanò, Giuseppe Vicidomini, and Colin JR Sheppard 1 4.02 Tip Enhanced Raman Microscopy Atsushi Taguchi, Jun Yu, and Kohta Saitoh 13 4.03 Atomic-Scale Elastic Property Probed by Atomic Force Microscopy Yoshitaka Naitoh, Yan Jun Li, and Yasuhiro Sugawara 33 4.04 Nanoscale Magnetic Imaging Yukio Hasegawa, Masahiro Haze, and Yasuo Yoshida 53 4.05 Optics of Metallic Nanostructures GA Wurtz, RJ Pollard, W Dickson, and AV Zayats 67 4.06 Nanostructures and Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy KM Kosuda, JM Bingham, KL Wustholz, RP Van Duyne, and RJ Groarke 117 4.07 The Use of Aluminum Nanostructures in Plasmon-Controlled Fluorescence Applications in the Ultraviolet Toward the Label-Free Detection of Biomolecules MH Chowdhury, K Ray, and JR Lakowicz 153 4.08 Optical Properties of Nanostructured Silicon Yimin Chao 189 Contents of all Volumes xv
- 15. 4.09 Colloidal and Self-Assembled Quantum Dots for Optical Gain P Kambhampati, Z Mi, and RR Cooney 215 4.10 Structured Organic Non-Linear Optics S-H Jang and AK-Y Jen 261 4.11 Laser Action in p-Conjugated Polymers ZV Vardeny and RC Polson 297 4.12 Nanoscale Optical Response Hajime Ishihara 323 4.13 Optical Nanomanipulation and Structured-Beam Optical Traps Vincent R Daria and Woei M Lee 347 VOLUME 5 5.01 Organic Electronic Devices With Water-Dispersible Conducting Polymers Jacob D Tarver, Melda Sezen-Edmonds, Joung Eun Yoo, and Yueh-Lin Loo 1 5.02 Quantum Dot Light Emitting Diodes Ruidong Zhu, Hao Chen, Shin-Tson Wu, and Yajie Dong 35 5.03 Optical Biomimetics Andrew R Parker 57 5.04 Spin-Based Data Storage O Ozatay, T Hauet, PM Braganca, L Wan, P Mather, ML Schneider, and J-U Thiele 67 5.05 Random Nanosized Metal Grains and Interface-Trap Fluctuations in Emerging CMOS Technologies Yiming Li 123 5.06 Photo-Functional Applications of Semiconductor Nanomaterials Yoshio Nosaka and Atsuko Y Nosaka 135 5.07 Nanomaterials for Electrical Energy Storage Andrey B Yaroslavtsev, Irina A Stenina, Tatyana L Kulova, Alexander M Skundin, and Andrey V Desyatov 165 5.08 Nanofluidics H Daiguji 207 5.09 Picoliter Printing T Singh, E Gili, M Caironi, and H Sirringhaus 229 5.10 Advances in Nanotechnology Based Functional, Smart and Intelligent Textiles: A Review Mangala Joshi and Bapan Adak 253 5.11 The Effect of Roughness Geometry on Superhydrophobicity and Related Phenomena Neil Shirtcliffe, Philipp Comanns, Christopher Hamlett, Paul Roach, and Shaun Atherton 291 5.12 Tribology of Nanostructured Surfaces Yuan-Zhong Hu and Tian-Bao Ma 309 5.13 Towards Nano-Risk Assessment With High Throughput Screening and High Content Analysis: An Intelligent Testing Strategy Deepti Mittal and Gautam Kaul 343 Subject Index 361 xvi Contents of all Volumes
- 16. PREFACE Volume 1: Nanomaterials This volume considers the huge scope that now exists for inorganic, organic and hybrid nanomaterials. Since the publication of the previous edition of Comprehensive Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, the breadth of known nanomaterials has expanded – most notably perhaps in the burgeoning scientific field of two-dimensional materials – and our understanding of the growth, structure, functionality and performance of nanomaterials has flourished with it. In nanomaterials science, the underpinning chemistry and physics of materials at the nanoscale combines with growth and deposition towards the unique approaches to device fabrication that characterise engineering in the nanometer regime. The applications of nanomaterials, both potential and realised, have also proliferated as our grasp of new properties and phenomena improves. The importance of dimen- sionality in structure and properties has helped redefine the limits of nanomaterials performance. The topics in this volume are interwoven with this theme of dimensionality and illustrate the ranges of materials behaviour and phenomena that depend upon this fundamental variable. A consideration of nanomaterials of the lowest dimensionality - zero-dimensional nanoparticles - begins this volume in Chapter 1.01. The chapter adopts a chemistry-oriented viewpoint to describe the parameters and mechanisms behind nanoparticle formation and growth processes. The chapter emphasises how a physical understanding of the thermodynamics and kinetics of the nucleation and growth phenomena are vital in the subsequent, more practical choices of synthesis technique and conditions. Building on the underlying principles discussed above, the following chapter (Chapter 1.02) discusses wet-chemical synthesis and characterization of 0D nanoparticles, with a strong emphasis on IIB/VI semiconductors. Manna et al. survey all the relevant synthesis methods, including potentially scalable approaches such as continuous flow synthesis or thermospray methods. This chapter is concluded with a comprehensive discussion on the most important characterisation methods. In extending the discussion of nanoparticles to the noble metals, Toropov and Vartanyan present a comprehensive discourse on the optical properties that distinguish these metal species (Chapter 1.03). Both top-down and bottom-up approaches are relevant to the synthesis of noble metal nanoparticles and issues of purification, monodispersity and the stability of optical spectra are central in the most appropriate choice of synthetic route and conditions. Such requirements are significant in the context of many unique applications including sensors, surface-enhanced Raman scattering and transparent conductive electrodes. Magnetic nanoparticles also have great potential for both new and commercially-important applications. Their proliferation as contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging illustrates the impact that such materials are already having in modern society. Mørup et al. (Chapter 1.04) describe the properties of these materials in detail, highlighting underpinning phenomena such as super- paramagnetism, magnetic fluctuations and magnetic anisotropy. This chapter concludes with a discussion of some of the key applications of magnetic nanocrystals from data storage to medical uses and considers also their occurrences in nature. Arguably the next level of complexity is then to combine and link the magnetic properties of metallic nanoparticles with semi-conductivity to produce nanoparticles of ferromagnetic semiconductors that could typically be deposited as a thin film. This is the topic covered in Chapter 1.05, where Hai introduces the concept of spintronics and the roles of nanostructured doped III-V and Group VI semiconductors towards achieving this goal. The chapter discusses the practicalities of fabrication while also considering phe- nomena such as the tunnelling magnetoresistance effect (TME) and how it might be controlled. A variety of III-V and Gp VI materials are considered in more detail and it is demonstrated how the choice of dopant (for example Fe vs Mn) can have a profound influence on properties and performance. Building on the fundamentals and examples introduced in the previous chapters, Parak et al. (Chapter 1.06) describe the increasingly influential area of core-shell nanoparticles and introduce the methods for the - often epitaxial - growth of inorganic shells onto nanocrystals. The primary focus is on nanomaterials with semiconductor cores and how both chemical and physical properties of this core can be modified by the presence (and activity) of the shell. Such a construction can lead to so-called quantum dot-quantum well (QDQW) regimes in which the 0D behaviour of the core is complemented by the 1D behaviour of the shell. The chapter concludes by considering lattice mismatch of core and shell and how shape control can be exerted. The emphasis changes gradually from 0D to 1D nano-objects in the immediately following chapters and there is perhaps no better system in which to observe this evolution than carbon. Chapters 1.07, 1.08 and 1.09 consider Fullerenes, nanotubes and nanotube superstructures respectively and it is possible to follow how these structures and superstructures are derived from C60 and closely-related building blocks. Chapter 1.07 establishes the basics of fullerenes before presenting detailed information on the processes involved in their chemical functionalisation, expounding on the synthetic organic chemistry that permits increasingly complex molecular entities to be constructed and leading to the concept of molecular wires. The natural dimensional progression from Fullerenes is to carbon nanotubes and Chapter 1.08 explains how the unique molecular crystal structure of single walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) accounts for their electronic structure. Moreover, Bepete and Coleman demonstrate how the intrinsic electronic and vibrational properties are manifested in the spectra of nanotubes. Spectroscopy, combined with electron microscopy, provides a powerful means to verify the purity and functionalisation of SWCNTs as well as providing information on defects, size and chirality. Controlling the xvii
- 17. interactions of nanotubes with other nanoparticular species is key in extending structure and functionality beyond the tubes themselves, opening further applications in microelectronics, sensing, catalysis and energy storage and conversion. Rance and Khlobystov articulate the incredible extent of interactions available in assembling nanoparticle-carbon nano- tube (NP-CNT) superstructures (Chapter 1.09). The potential of such a choice of strength and directionality of interaction is undeniable but the authors are very clear about the challenges that remain in terms of superstructure control. They also rightly highlight the health (cytotoxicity) issues that must be considered as such materials are developed further. One dimensional (1D) inorganic nanostructures are introduced in Chapter 1.10 with examples of inorganic nanotubes. Remskar first underscores the parallels with carbon nanotubes before going on to emphasise that despite some structural simi- larities, the growth mechanisms of inorganic nanotubes are profoundly different from those of CNTs. Further, the extent of compositional diversity afforded by drawing on elements from across the periodic table, gives rise to a wide range of contrasting properties with possible applications as lubricants, inert reaction vessels or drug delivery systems. The theme of anisotropic 1D inorganic nanomaterials is developed further in Chapter 1.11, where Zitoun et al. discuss how sensors can be fabricated from either metallic or semiconducting nanowires. Vapour-liquid-solid (VLS) and solution-liquid-solid (SLS) phase synthesis approaches are pivotal in the preparation of inorganic nanowires for devices where sensing can originate from a host of different chemical and physical functionalities from thermal conductivity through optical properties to electrochemical activity to name only three. Response time, extreme sensitivity and manufacturability can be issues that will need to be addressed as materials and devices become more sophisticated. Electrospinning is one technique that might enable a progression from lab- to plant-scale nanomaterial production. In Chapter 1.12, Willerth elaborates on this increasingly popular technique in which an electrical field is applied to a polymer solution as it is discharged from a nozzle. The ensuing stream of charged liquid divides as it is repelled by the applied voltage yielding polymeric fibres. Such fibres can be fashioned into three-dimensional scaffolds, for example, with applications in filtration, regenerative medicine and energy storage. There is also the prospect of manufacturing increasingly advanced functional and “smart” textiles. As one moves from 1D to 2D materials, inevitably one is confronted with one of the major scientific breakthroughs of the last several decades. Bazylewski and Fanchini provide a comprehensive overview of the graphene phenomenon in Chapter 1.13. The authors describe the origin and fundamentals of its existence prior to presenting the essential aspects of its isolation and fabrication. The unique electronic structure, vibrational structure and transport properties that have made graphene the exciting discovery that it is are explained in detail before a selection of the most important applications are appraised. The authors highlight how the many theoretical predictions of the properties and applications of the archetypal 2D nanomaterial are one-by-one beginning to be realised. In the wake of the discovery of graphene, the emergence of inorganic 2D materials has by no means been unnoticed. In Chapter 1.14 the accent is on perhaps the largest family of 2D inorganics, the transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs). The electronic properties of TMDs can vary with composition and crystal structure, but many are semiconducting with similar carrier mobilities to silicon. The particular subject of this chapter is the exotic optical properties of 2D TMDs and especially the capacity for nonlinear photonics. Ultimately, the prospects for development of concepts such as quantum photonics and the combination of TMDs with metasurfaces are assessed. Another rapidly emerging family of 2D inorganic nanomaterials are the MXenes which are vying with TMDs as the most flexible in terms of composition and multifunctionality. Chakraborty, Das and Saha-Dasgupta collate the various compositional and structural groupings of MXenes in Chapter 1.15 and offer a full account of their electronic, magnetic and mechanical properties. They also evaluate the prospects for MXene heterostructures (with graphene or TMDs), which to date are largely the topic only of theoretical studies. Superconductivity and energy storage are just two interesting possibilities in terms of properties and applications for further exploration. Chapter 1.16 amalgamates concepts of 3D and 0D nanomaterials in its discussion of nanoconfinement of essentially isolated species within three dimensional mesoporous frameworks. Soler-Illia et al. first introduce mesoporous materials and continue by summarising the means by which they can be synthesised and their internal structures modified. The processes of nanocon- finement and nanocomposite formation are illustrated with several examples relating especially to catalysis and adsorbing, stabilising, releasing and delivering drugs. The chapter emphasises that nanoconfined systems can be regarded as much more than simply high surface area solids and adsorbed species. Chapter 1.17 considers a completely different set of applications, showing how the properties of thermoelectric materials can be enhanced hugely by processes of nanostructuring. Nanoscale thermoelectrics can benefit from the full range of dimensional variation from nanoparticles, through nanowires to superlattices. As Kleinke et al. convey in the chapter, most tellingly, all the best-performing, most efficient thermoelectric materials (with figures of merit, ZT 4 2) are nanomaterials. Four prototypical thermoelectric systems are presented to elucidate how chemical and physical methods of size reduction and control can impact electronic and thermal transport. Finally, Up-converting nanomaterials have a huge potential for applications in both the physical and life sciences (for example. bioimaging, cancer therapy and electro-optics). Dominated by 0D nanoparticles, but also embracing 1D and core-shell approaches, the preparation of luminescent up-converting nanomaterials is not straightforward. Wang and Liu (Chapter 1.18) give a comprehensive overview of synthesis methods and applications of f-block element doped nanophosphors. Surface modification and functionalisation is crucial in the continued development of new upconversion nanomaterials. This volume contains a wealth of exciting examples that reflect the dynamism associated with current nanomaterials research. As one probes deeper into concepts of structure and properties at the nanoscale, more and more field-defining revelations continue to materialise. Coupled with the implementation of progressively more imaginative and ingenious synthesis techniques, the xviii Preface
- 18. chances of discovering new nanomaterials and with them, new phenomena, increases. I am very grateful to the all the expert authors who have contributed to this volume and succeeded in communicating the vitality of this fast-moving area. Duncan H. Gregory University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom Preface xix
- 20. FOREWORD Eight years have elapsed since the publication of the first edition of this Comprehensive, a forerunner to the present set of volumes. It is interesting to observe how, over this period, the whole field of nanoscience and its associated technologies have undergone both a remarkable and substantial growth and consolidation. The early days are now but a distant memory when the very term ‘nanoscience’ was viewed more as a buzzword than a reality, and gendered some degree of scepticism – perhaps even derision in some quarters. As nanoscience has developed and grown, its increasing maturity has enabled a range of new technologies to reach the marketplace, while at the research level newer topics continue to emerge, as well as a deeper understanding of the fundamental underpinnings of the field. It is therefore with great enthusiasm that we accepted the invitation to work with Elsevier to capture afresh the new state of the art. In each volume, the majority of the content is entirely new, or it has been substantially updated, and we have ourselves learned a great deal of new science in the course of soliciting contributions and putting the content together. In this endeavour we have also been joined by an eminent team of Volume Editors whose tireless work has, more than anything, ensured the integrity and success of this project. We gladly acknowledge our debt to them. As with the first edition, each chapter aims to provide an amenable point of entry for scientists, engineers and specialist technologists, covering key developments in a scholarly, readable, and critical discourse. Once again it has been a delight to find, among the continually escalating numbers in nanoscience and nanotechnology, so many highly esteemed authors willing to contribute suitably broad and incisive material. Full credit goes to these individuals. We also record our sincere thanks and appreciation for the skills and professionalism of numerous Elsevier staff - especially Ruth Ireland and Claire Byrne, who have been involved in this project with us since its inception. David L. Andrews Norwich, United Kingdom Robert H. Lipson Victoria, Canada Thomas Nann Newcastle, Australia xxi
- 21. Another Random Scribd Document with Unrelated Content
- 22. somewhat the best of this work, such as it was. But the war in the Netherlands was practically stagnant. At the end of the first year of Leicester’s government, events of the highest importance obliged him to pay a visit to England (Nov. 1586). The Queen of Scots had been found guilty of conspiring to assassinate Elizabeth, and Parliament had been summoned to decide upon her fate.
- 23. CHAPTER IX EXECUTION OF THE QUEEN OF SCOTS: 1584-1587 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 ipso facto 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. In this dilemma an ingenious plan suggested itself to them. They drew up a “Bond of Association,” by which the subscribers engaged that, if the Queen were murdered, they would never accept as successor any one “by
- 24. whom or for whom” such act should be committed, but would “prosecute such person to death.” 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 or for 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, after examination and judgment 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. Here, then, was a legal way provided by which the Protestant ministers might act against Mary if Elizabeth were murdered. They were in fact creating 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. 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 co-operate with a Guise invasion, she had scornfully
- 25. 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). 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. 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. 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.[6] She at first refused their jurisdiction; but on being informed that they would proceed in her absence, she appeared before them under protest (October 14, 1586). After sitting at Fotheringay for two days, the Court adjourned to Westminster, where it pronounced her guilty (October 25).[7] A declaration was added that her disqualification for the succession, which followed by
- 26. 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. A general election had been held while the trial was going on, and Parliament met four days after its conclusion (October 29). 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 Cæsar, 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 “the Queen’s safety could no way be secured as long as the Queen of Scots lived.” 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. 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
- 27. unfair that the undivided odium should fall, as she foresaw it would fall, on her alone. 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.[8] 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. A warrant for the execution had been drawn soon after the adjournment of Parliament, and all through December and January Elizabeth’s ministers
- 28. 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 (February 1). 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 “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.” 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. Burghley assembled in his own room the Earls of Derby and Leicester, Lords Howard of Effingham, Hunsdon, and Cobham, Knollys, Hatton, Walsingham, and Davison (February 3). These ten were probably the only privy councillors then at Greenwich.[9] 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.
- 29. On Thursday (February 9) 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 she might and did, and all the more furiously because they had combined for self-protection. But to punish the 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. 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. “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.” 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.
- 30. 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. 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. NOTE ON PAULET’S ALLEGED REFUSAL TO MURDER MARY. 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 a copy of them was sent him by Mr. Urry of Christ Church, Oxford, and that they had been found among Paulet’s papers. Two years
- 31. later they were printed by Hearne, an Oxford Jacobite and Nonjuror, who says he got them from a copy furnished him by a friend unnamed (Urry?), who told him he had copied them in 1717 from a MS. letter-book of Paulet’s. There is also a MS. copy 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. No one has ever seen the originals of these letters. Neither has any one, except Hearne’s unnamed friend, seen the “letter-book” into which Paulet is supposed to have copied them. Where had this “letter-book” 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 “letter-book” 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 copies than to attempt an imitation of Paulet’s well-known handwriting, with all the other difficulties involved in forging a manuscript. 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.
- 32. CHAPTER X WAR WITH SPAIN: 1587-1603 ELIZABETH is not seen at her best in war. She did not easily resign herself to its sacrifices. It frightened her to see the money which she had painfully put together, pound by pound, during so many years, by many a small economy, draining out at the rate of £17,000 a month into the bottomless pit of military expenditure. When Leicester came back she simply stopped all remittances to the Netherlands, making sure that if she did not feed her soldiers some one else would have to do it. She saw that Parma was not pressing forward. And though rumours of the enormous preparations in Spain, which accounted for his inactivity, continued to pour in, she still hoped that her intervention in the Netherlands was bending Philip to concessions. All this time Parma was steadily carrying out his master’s plans for the invasion. His little army was to be trebled in the autumn by reinforcements principally from Italy. In the meantime he was collecting a flotilla of flat-bottomed boats. As soon as the Armada should appear they were to make the passage under its protection. It would answer no useful purpose, even if my limits permitted it, to enter into the particulars of Elizabeth’s policy towards the United Provinces during the twelve months that preceded the appearance of the Armada. Her proceedings were often tortuous, and by setting them forth in minute detail her detractors have not found it difficult to represent them as treacherous. But, living three centuries later, what have we to consider but the general scope and drift of her policy? Looking at it as a whole we shall find that, whether we approve of it or not, it was simple, consistent, and undisguised. She had no intention of abandoning the Provinces to Philip, still less of betraying them. But she did wish them to return to their allegiance, if she could procure for them proper guarantees for such liberties as they had been satisfied with before Philip’s tyranny began. If Philip had been wise he would have made those concessions. Elizabeth is not to be over-much blamed if she clung too long to the belief that he could be persuaded or compelled to do what was so much for his own interest. If she was deceived
- 33. so was Burghley. Walsingham is entitled to the credit of having from first to last refused to believe that the negotiations were anything but a blind. Though Elizabeth desired peace, she did not cease to deal blows at Philip. In the spring of 1587 (April-June), while she was most earnestly pushing her negotiations with Parma, she despatched Drake on a new expedition to the Spanish coast. He forced his way into the harbours of Cadiz and Corunna, destroyed many ships and immense stores, and came back loaded with plunder. The Armada had not been crippled, for most of the ships that were to compose it were lying in the Tagus. But the concentration had been delayed. Fresh stores had to be collected. Drake calculated, and as it proved rightly, that another season at least would be consumed in repairing the loss, and that England, for that summer and autumn, could rest secure of invasion. The delay was most unwelcome to Philip. The expense of keeping such a fleet and army on foot through the winter would be enormous. Spain was maintaining not only the Armada but the army of Parma; for the resources of the Netherlands, which had been the true El Dorado of the Spanish monarchy, were completely dried up. So impatient was Philip—usually the slowest of men—that he proposed to despatch the Armada even in September, and actually wrote to Parma that he might expect it at any moment. But, as Drake had calculated, September was gone before everything was ready. The naval experts protested against the rashness of facing the autumnal gales, with no friendly harbour on either side of the Channel in which to take refuge. Philip then made the absurd suggestion that the army from the Netherlands should cross by itself in its flat- bottomed boats. But Parma told him that it was absolutely out of the question. Four English ships could sink the whole flotilla. In the meantime his soldiers, waiting on the Dunkirk Downs and exposed to the severities of the weather, were dying off like flies. Philip and Elizabeth resembled one another in this, that neither of them had any personal experience of war either by land or sea. For a Queen this was natural. For a King it was unnatural, and for an ambitious King unprecedented. They did not understand the proper adaptation of means to ends. Yet it was necessary to obtain their sanction before anything could be done. Hence there was much mismanagement on both sides. Still England was in no real danger during the summer and autumn of 1587, because Philip’s preparations were not completed; and before the end of the year the English fleet was lying in the
- 34. Channel. But the Queen grudged the expense of keeping the crews up to their full complement. The supply of provisions and ammunition was also very inadequate. The expensiveness of war is generally a sufficient reason for not going to war; but to attempt to do war cheaply is always unwise. “Sparing and war,” as Effingham observed, “have no affinity together.” Drake strongly urged that, instead of trying to guard the Channel, the English fleet should make for the coast of Spain, and boldly assail the Armada as soon as it put to sea. This was the advice of a man who had all the shining qualities of Nelson, and seems to have been in no respect his inferior. It was no counsel of desperation. He was confident of success. Lord Howard of Effingham, the Admiral, was of the same opinion. The negotiations were odious to him. For Burghley, who clings to them, he has no more reverence than Hamlet had for Polonius. “Since England was England,” he writes to Walsingham, “there was never such a stratagem and mask to deceive her as this treaty of peace. I pray God that we do not curse for this a long grey beard with a white head witless, that will make all the world think us heartless. You know whom I mean.” With the hopes and fears of these sea-heroes, it is instructive to compare the forecast of the great soldier who was to conduct the invasion. Always obedient and devoted to his sovereign, Parma played his part in the deceptive negotiations with consummate skill. But his own opinion was that it would be wise to negotiate in good faith and accept the English terms. Though prepared to undertake the invasion, he took a very serious view of the risks to be encountered. He tells Philip that the English preparations are formidable both by land and sea. Even if the passage should be safely accomplished, disembarkation would be difficult. His army, reduced by the hardships of the winter from 30,000 men, which he had estimated as the proper number, to less than 17,000, was dangerously small for the work expected of it. He would have to fight battle after battle, and the further he advanced the weaker would his army become both from losses and from the necessity of protecting his communications. Parma had carefully informed himself of the preparations in England. From the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, attention had been paid to the organisation, training, and equipment of the militia, and especially since the relations with Spain had become more hostile. On paper it seems to have amounted to 117,000 men. Mobilisation was a local business. Sir John Norris drew up the plan of defence. Beacon fires did the work of the
- 35. telegraph. Every man knew whither he was to repair when their blaze should be seen. The districts to be abandoned, the positions to be defended, the bridges to be broken, were all marked out. Three armies, calculated to amount in the aggregate to 73,000 men, were ordered to assemble in July. Whether so many were actually mustered is doubtful. But Parma would certainly have found himself confronted by forces vastly superior in numbers to his own, and would have had, as he said, to fight battle after battle. The bow had not been entirely abandoned, but the greater part of the archers—two-thirds in some counties—had lately been armed with calivers. What was wanting in discipline would have been to some extent made up by the spontaneous cohesion of a force organised under its natural leaders, the nobles and gentry of each locality, not a few of whom had seen service abroad. But, after all, the greatest element of strength was the free spirit of the people. England was, and had long been, a nation of freemen. There were a few peers, and a great many knights and gentlemen. But there was no noble caste, as on the Continent, separated by an impassable barrier of birth and privilege from the mass of the people. All felt themselves fellow- countrymen bound together by common sentiments, common interests, and mutual respect. This spirit of freedom—one might almost say of equality—made itself felt still more in the navy, and goes far to account for the cheerful energy and dash with which every service was performed. “The English officers lived on terms of sympathy with their men unknown to the Spaniards, who raised between the commander and the commanded absurd barriers of rank and blood which forbade to his pride any labour but that of fighting. Drake touched the true mainspring of English success when he once (in his voyage round the world) indignantly rebuked some coxcomb gentlemen- adventurers with, ‘I should like to see the gentleman that will refuse to set his hand to a rope. I must have the gentlemen to hale and draw with the mariners.’ ”[10] Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher were all born of humble parents. They rose by their own valour and capacity. They had gentlemen of birth serving under them. To Howard and Cumberland and Seymour they were brothers-in-arms. The master of every little trading vessel was fired by their example, and hoped to climb as high. It is the pleasure of some writers to speak of Elizabeth’s naval preparations as disgracefully insufficient, and to treat the triumphant result as a sort of miracle. To their apprehension, indeed, her whole reign is one
- 36. long interference by Providence with the ordinary relations of cause and effect. The number of royal ships as compared with those of private owners in the fleet which met the great Armada—34 to 161—is represented as discreditably small. By Englishmen of that day, it was considered to be creditably large. Sir Edward Coke (who was thirty-eight at the time of the Armada), writing under Charles I., when the royal navy was much larger, says: “In the reign of Queen Elizabeth (I being then acquainted with this business) there were thirty-three [royal ships] besides pinnaces, which so guarded and regarded the navigation of the merchants, as they had safe vent for their commodities, and trade and traffic flourished.”[11] It seems to be overlooked that the royal navy, such as it was, was almost the creation of Elizabeth. Her father was the first English king who made any attempt to keep a standing navy of his own. He established the Admiralty and the first royal dockyard. Under Edward and Mary the navy, like everything else, went to ruin. Elizabeth’s ship-building, humble as it seems to us, excited the admiration of her subjects, and was regarded as one of the chief advances of her reign. The ships, when not in commission, were kept in the Medway. The Queen personally paid the greatest attention to them. They were always kept in excellent condition, and could be fitted out for sea at very short notice. Economy was enforced in this, as in other departments, but not at the expense of efficiency. The wages of officers and men were very much augmented; but in the short periods for which crews were enlisted, and in the victualling, there seems to have been unwise parsimony in 1588. The grumbling of alarmists about unpreparedness, apathy, stinginess, and red-tape was precisely what it is in our own day. We know that some allowance is to be made for it. The movements of the Armada were perfectly well known in England, and all the dispositions to meet it at sea were completed in a leisurely manner. Conferences were still going on at Ostend between English and Spanish commissioners. On the part of Elizabeth there was sincerity, but not blind credulity nor any disposition to make unworthy concessions. Conferences quite as protracted have often been held between belligerents while hostilities were being actively carried on. The large majority of Englishmen were resolved to fight to the death against any invader. But, as against Spain, there was not that eager pugnacity which a war with France always called forth, except, perhaps, among the sea-rovers; and even they would have contented themselves, if it had been possible, with the
- 37. unrecognised privateering which had so long given them the profits of war with the immunities of peace. The rest of the nation respected their Queen for her persevering endeavour to find a way of reconciliation with an ancient ally, and to limit, in the meantime, the area of hostilities. They were confident, and with good reason, that she would surrender no important interest, and that aggressive designs would be met, as they had always been met, more than half-way. The story of the great victory is too well known to need repetition here. But some comments are necessary. It is usual, for one reason or other, to exaggerate the disparity of the opposing fleets, and to represent England as only saved from impending ruin by the extraordinary daring of her seamen, and a series of fortunate accidents. The final destruction of the Armada, after the pursuit was over, was certainly the work of wind and sea. But if we fairly weigh the available strength on each side, we shall see that the English commanders might from the first feel, as they did feel, a reasonable assurance of defeating the invaders. Let us first compare the strength of the fleets: English. Ships. Tonnage. Guns. Mariners. Royal 34 11850 837 6279 Private 163 17894 not stated 9506 197 29744 15785 Spanish. 132 59120 3165 8766 The Armada carried besides 21,855 soldiers.[12] The first thing that strikes us is the immense preponderance in tonnage on the part of the Spaniards, and in sailors on the part of the English. This really goes far to explain the result. Nothing is more certain than that the Spanish ships, notwithstanding their superior size, were for fighting and sailing purposes very inferior to the English. It had always been believed that, to withstand the heavy seas of the Atlantic, a ship should be constructed like a lofty fortress. The English builders were introducing lower and longer hulls and a greater spread of canvas. Their crews, as has always been the case in our navy, were equally handy as sailors and gunners. The Spanish ships were under-manned. The soldiers were not accustomed to work the guns, and were of no use unless it came to boarding, which Howard ordered his
- 38. captains to avoid. The English guns, if fewer than the Spanish, were heavier and worked by more practised men.[13] Their balls not only cut up the rigging of the Spaniards but tore their hulls (which were supposed to be cannon-proof), while the English ships were hardly touched. The slaughter among the wretched soldiers crowded between decks was terrible. Blood was seen pouring out of the lee-scuppers. “The English ships,” says a Spanish officer, “were under such good management that they did with them what they pleased.” The work was done almost entirely by the Queen’s ships. “If you had seen,” says Sir William Winter, “the simple service done by the merchants and coast ships, you would have said we had been little helped by them, otherwise than that they did make a show.” The principal and final battle was fought off Gravelines (July 29/Aug. 8). The Armada therefore did arrive at its destination, but only to show that the general plan of the invasion was an impracticable one. The superiority in tonnage and number of guns on the morning of that day, though not what it had been when the fighting began a week before, was still immense, if superiority in those particulars had been of any use. But with this battle the plan of Philip was finally shattered. So far from being in a condition to cover Parma’s passage, the Spanish admiral was glad to escape as best he could from the English pursuit. During the eight days’ fight, be it observed, the Armada had experienced no unfavourable weather or other stroke of ill-fortune. The wind had been mostly in the west, and not tempestuous. After the last battle, when the crippled Spanish ships were drifting upon the Dutch shoals, it opportunely shifted, and enabled them to escape into the North Sea. It would not be easy to find any great naval engagement in which the victors suffered so little. In the last battle, when they came to close quarters, they had about sixty killed. During the first seven days their loss seems to have been almost nil. One vessel only—not belonging to the Queen— became entangled among the enemy, and succumbed. Except the master of this vessel not one of the captains was killed from first to last. Many men of rank were serving in the fleet. It is not mentioned that one of them was so much as wounded. Looking at all these facts, we can surely come to only one conclusion. Philip’s plan was hopeless from the first. Barring accidents, the English were bound to win. On no other occasion in our history was our country so
- 39. well prepared to meet her enemies. Never was her safety from invasion so amply guaranteed. The defeat of the Great Armada was the deserved and crowning triumph of thirty years of good government at home and wise policy abroad; of careful provision for defence and sober abstinence from adventure and aggression. Of the land preparations it is impossible to speak with equal confidence, as they were never put to the test. If the Spaniards had landed, Leicester’s militia would no doubt have experienced a bloody defeat. London might have been taken and plundered. But Parma himself never expected to become master of the country without the aid of a great Catholic rising. This, we may affirm with confidence, would not have taken place on even the smallest scale. Overwhelming forces would soon have gathered round the Spaniards. They would probably have retired to the coast, and there fortified some place from which it would have been difficult to dislodge them as long as they retained the command of the sea. Such seems to have been the utmost success which, in the most favourable event, could have attended the invasion. A great disaster, no doubt, for England, and one for which Elizabeth would have been judged by history with more severity than justice; for Englishmen have always chosen to risk it, down to our own time.[14] No government which insisted on making adequate provision for the military defence of the country would have been tolerated then, or, to all appearance, would be tolerated now. We have always trusted to our navy. It were to be wished that our naval superiority were as assured now as when we defeated the Armada. The arrangements for feeding the soldiers and sailors were very defective. A praiseworthy system of control had been introduced to check waste and peculation in time of peace. Of course it did not easily adapt itself to the exigencies of war. Military operations are sure to suffer where a certain, or rather uncertain, amount of waste and peculation is not risked. We have not forgotten the “horrible and heart-rending” sufferings of our army in the Crimea, which, like those of Elizabeth’s fleet, had to be relieved by private effort. In the sixteenth century the lot of the soldier and sailor everywhere was want and disease, varied at intervals by plunder and excess. Philip’s soldiers and sailors were worse off than Elizabeth’s, though he grudged no money for purposes of war.
- 40. Those who profess to be scandalised by the appointment of Leicester to the command of the army should point out what fitter choice could have been made. He was the only great nobleman with any military experience; and to suppose that any one but a great nobleman could have been appointed to such a command is to show a profound ignorance of the ideas of the time. He had Sir John Norris, a really able soldier, as his marshal of the camp. After all, no one has alleged that he did not do his duty with energy and intelligence. The story that the Queen thought of making him her “Lieutenant in the government of England and Ireland,” but was dissuaded from it by Burghley and Hatton, rests on no authority but that of Camden, who is fond of repeating spiteful gossip about Leicester. No sensible person will believe that she meant to create a sort of Grand Vizier. She may have thought of making him what we should call “Commander-in- Chief.” There would be much to say for such a concentration of authority while the kingdom was threatened with invasion. The title of “Lieutenant” was a purely military one, and began to be applied under the Tudors to the commanders of the militia in each county. Leicester’s title for the time was “Lieutenant and Captain-General of the Queen’s armies and companies.” But we find him complaining to Walsingham that the patent of Hunsdon, the commander of the Midland army, gave him independent powers. “I shall have wrong if he absolutely command where my patent doth give me power. You may easily conceive what absurd dealings are likely to fall out if you allow two absolute commanders” (28 July). Camden’s story is probably a confused echo of this dispute. Writers who are loth to admit that the trust, the gratitude, the enthusiastic loyalty which Elizabeth inspired were the first and most important cause of the great victory, have sought to belittle the grandest moment of her life by pointing out that the famous speech at Tilbury was made after the battle of Gravelines. But the dispersal of the Armada by the storm of August 5th was not yet known in England. Drake, writing on the 8th and 10th, thinks that it is gone to Denmark to refit, and begs the Queen not to diminish any of her forces. The occasion of the speech on the 10th seems to have been the arrival of a post on that day, while the Queen was at dinner in Leicester’s tent, with a false alarm that Parma had embarked all his forces, and might be expected in England immediately.[15] But the Lieutenant-General had reached the end of his career. Three weeks after the Tilbury review he died of “a continued fever,” at the age of
- 41. fifty-six. He kept Elizabeth’s regard to the last, because she believed—and during the latter part of his life, not wrongly—in his fidelity and devotion. There is no sign that she at any time valued his judgment or suffered him to sway her policy, except so far as he was the mouthpiece of abler advisers; nor did she ever allow his enmities, violent as they were, to prejudice her against any of her other servants. His fortune was no doubt much above his deserts, and he has paid the usual penalty. There are few personages in history about whom so much malicious nonsense has been written. We cannot help looking on England as placed in a quite new position by the defeat of the Armada—a position of security and independence. In truth, what was changed was not so much the relative strength of England and Spain as the opinion of it held by Englishmen and Spaniards, and indeed by all Europe. The loss to Philip in mere ships, men, and treasure was no doubt considerable. But his inability to conquer England was demonstrated rather than caused by the destruction of the Armada. Philip himself talked loftily about “placing another fleet upon the seas.” But his subjects began to see that defence, not conquest, was now their business—and had been for some time if they had only known it: Cervi, luporum præda rapacium, Sectamur ultro quos opimus Fallere et effugere est triumphus. Elizabeth’s attitude to Philip underwent a marked change. Till then she had been unwilling to abandon the hope of a peaceful settlement. She had dealt him not a few stinging blows, but always with a certain restraint and forbearance, because they were meant for the purpose of bringing him to reason. Thirty years of patience on his part had led her to believe that he would never carry retaliation beyond assassination plots. At last, in his slow way, he had gathered up all his strength and essayed to crush her. Thenceforward she was a convert to Drake’s doctrine that attack was the surest way of defence. She had still good reasons for devolving this work as much as possible on the private enterprise of her subjects. The burden fell on those who asked nothing better than to be allowed to bear it. Thus arose that system, or rather practice, of leaving national work to be executed by private enterprise, which has had so much to do with the building up of the British Empire. Private gain has been the mainspring of action. National
- 42. defence and aggrandisement have been almost incidental results. With Elizabeth herself national and private aims could not be dissevered. The nation and she had but one purse. She was cheaply defending England, and she shared in the plunder. The favourite cruising-ground of the English adventurers was off the Azores, where the Spanish treasure fleets always halted for fresh water and provisions, on their way to Europe. Some of these expeditions were on a large scale. But they were not so successful or profitable, in proportion to their size, as the smaller ventures of Drake and Hawkins earlier in the reign. The Spaniards were everywhere on the alert. The harbours of the New World, which formerly lay in careless security, were put into a state of defence. Treasure fleets made their voyages with more caution. “Not a grain of gold, silver, or pearl, but what must be got through the fire.” The day of great prizes was gone by. Two of these expeditions are distinguished by their importance. The first was a joint-stock venture of Drake and Norris—the foremost sailor and the foremost soldier among Englishmen of that day—in the year after the great Armada (April 1589). They and some private backers found most of the capital. The Queen contributed six royal ships and £20,000. This fleet carried no less than 11,000 soldiers, for the aim was to wrest Portugal from the Spaniard and set up Don Antonio, a representative of the dethroned dynasty. Stopping on their way at Corunna, they took the lower town, destroyed large stores, and defeated in the field a much superior force marching to the relief of the place. Norris mined and breached the walls of the upper town; but the storming parties having been repulsed with great loss, the army re-embarked and pursued its voyage. Landing at Peniché, Norris marched fifty miles by Vimiero and Torres Vedras, names famous afterwards in the military annals of England, and on the seventh day arrived before Lisbon. But he had no battering train; for Drake, who had brought the fleet round to the mouth of the Tagus, judged it dangerous to enter the river. Nor did the Portuguese rise, as had been hoped. The army therefore, marching through the suburbs of Lisbon, rejoined the fleet at Cascaes, and proceeded to Vigo. That town was burnt, and the surrounding country plundered. This was the last exploit of the expedition. Great loss and dishonour had been inflicted on Spain; but no less than half of the soldiers and sailors had perished by disease; and the booty, though said to have been large, was a disappointment to the survivors.
- 43. The other great expedition was in 1596. The capture of Calais in April of that year by the Spaniards, had renewed the alarm of invasion, and it was determined to meet the danger at a distance from home. A great fleet, with 6000 soldiers on board, commanded by Essex and Howard of Effingham sailed straight to Cadiz, the principal port and arsenal of Spain. The harbour was forced by the fleet, the town and castle stormed by the army, several men-of-war taken or destroyed, a large merchant-fleet burnt, together with an immense quantity of stores and merchandise; the total value being estimated at twenty millions of ducats. This was by far the heaviest blow inflicted by England upon Spain during the reign, and was so regarded in Europe; for though the great Armada had been signally defeated by the English fleet, its subsequent destruction was due to the winds and waves. Essex was vehemently desirous to hold Cadiz; but Effingham and the Council of War appointed by the Queen would not hear of it. The expedition accordingly returned home, having effectually relieved England from the fear of invasion. The burning of Penzance by four Spanish galleys (1595) was not much to set against these great successes. One reason for the comparative impunity with which the English assailed the unwieldy empire of Philip was the insane pursuit of the French crown, to which he devoted all his resources after the murder of Henry III. In 1598, with one foot in the grave, and no longer able to conceal from himself that, with the exception of the conquest of Portugal, all the ambitious schemes of his life had failed, he was fain to conclude the peace of Vervins with Henry IV. Henry was ready to insist that England and the United Provinces should be comprehended in the treaty. Philip offered terms which Elizabeth would have welcomed ten years earlier. He proposed that the whole of the Low Countries should be constituted a separate sovereignty under his son-in-law the Archduke Albert. The Dutch, who were prospering in war as well as in trade, scouted the offer. English feeling was divided. There was a war-party headed by Essex and Raleigh, personally bitter enemies, but both athirst for glory, conquest, and empire, believing in no right but that of the strongest, greedy for wealth, and disdaining the slower, more laborious, and more legitimate modes of acquiring it. They were tired of campaigning it in France and the Low Countries, where hard knocks and beggarly plunder were all that a soldier had to look to. They proposed to carry a great English army across the Atlantic, to occupy permanently the isthmus of Panama, and from that
- 44. central position to wrestle with the Spaniard for the trade and plunder of the New World. The peace party held that these ambitious schemes would bring no profit except possibly to a few individuals; that the treasury would be exhausted and the country irritated by taxation and the pressing of soldiers; that to re-establish the old commercial intercourse with Spain would be more reputable and attended with more solid advantage to the nation at large; and finally, that the English arms would be much better employed in a thorough conquest of Ireland. These were the views of Burghley; and they were strongly supported by Buckhurst, the best of the younger statesmen who now surrounded Elizabeth. Elizabeth always encouraged her ministers to speak their minds; but, as Buckhurst said on this occasion, “when they have done their extreme duty she wills what she wills.” She determined to maintain the treaty of 1585 with the Dutch; but she took the opportunity of getting it amended in such a way as to throw upon them a larger share of the expenses of the war, and to provide more definitely for the ultimate repayment of her advances. We have seen that three years before the Armada Elizabeth had lost the French alliance, which had till then been the key-stone of her policy. Since then, though aware that Henry III. wished her well, and that he would thwart the Spanish faction as much as he dared, she had not been able to count on him. He might at any moment be pushed by Guise into an attack on England, either with or without the concurrence of Spain. The accession, therefore, of Henry IV. afforded her great relief. In him she had a sure ally. It is true that, like her other allies the Dutch, he was more in a condition to require help than to afford it. But the more work she provided for Philip in Holland or France, the safer England would be. The armies of the Holy League might be formidable to Henry; but as long as he could hold them at bay they were not dangerous to England. She had never quite got over her scruple about helping the Dutch against their lawful sovereign. But Henry IV. was the legitimate King of France, and she could heartily aid him to put down his rebels. From 2000 to 5000 English troops were therefore constantly serving in France down to the peace of Vervins. Philip, in defiance of the Salic law, claimed the crown of France for his daughter in right of her mother, who was a sister of Henry III. To Brittany he alleged that she had a special claim, as being descended from Anne of Brittany, which the Bourbons were not. Brittany, therefore, he invaded at once by sea. Elizabeth, alarmed by the proximity of this Spanish force,
- 45. desired that her troops in France should be employed in expelling it, and that they should be vigorously supported by Henry IV. Henry, on the other hand, was always drawing away the English to serve his more pressing needs in other parts of France. This brought upon him many harsh rebukes and threats from the English Queen. But she had, for the first time, met her match. He judged, and rightly, that she would not desert him. So, with oft- repeated apologies, light promises, and well-turned compliments, he just went on doing what suited him best, getting all the fighting he could out of the English, and airily eluding Elizabeth’s repeated demands for some coast town, which could be held, like Brill and Flushing, as a security for her heavy subsidies. When Henry was reconciled to the Catholic Church, Elizabeth went through the form of expressing surprise and regret at a step which she must have long expected, and must have felt to be wise (1593). Her alliance with Henry was not shaken. It was drawn even closer by a new treaty, each sovereign engaging not to make peace without the consent of the other. This engagement did not prevent Henry from concluding the separate peace of Vervins five years later, when he judged that his interest required it (1598). Elizabeth’s dissatisfaction was, this time, genuine enough. But Henry was no longer her protégé, a homeless, landless, penniless king, depending on English subsidies, roaming over the realm he called his own with a few thousands, or sometimes hundreds, of undisciplined cavaliers, who gathered and dispersed at their own pleasure. He was master of a re-united France, and could no longer be either patronised or threatened. Elizabeth might expostulate, and declare that “if there was such a sin as that against the Holy Ghost it must needs be ingratitude:” gratitude was a sentiment to which she was as much a stranger as Henry. The only difference between them was the national one: the Englishwoman preached; the Frenchman mocked. What made her so sore was that he had, so to speak, stolen her policy from her. His predecessor had always suspected her—and with good reason—of intending “to draw her neck out of the collar” if once she could induce him to undertake a joint war. The joint war had at length been undertaken by Henry IV., and it was he who had managed to slip out of it first, while Elizabeth, who longed for peace, was obliged to stand by the Dutch. The two sovereigns, however, knew their own interests too well to quarrel. Henry gave Elizabeth to understand that his designs against Spain
- 46. had undergone no change; he was only halting for breath; he would help the Dutch underhand—just what she used to say to Henry III. She had now to deal with a French King as sagacious as herself, and a great deal more prompt and vigorous in action; not the man to be made a cat’s-paw by any one. She had to accept him as a partner, if not on her own terms, then on his. Both sovereigns were thoroughly veracious—in Carlyle’s sense of the word. That is to say, their policy was determined not by passion, or vanity, or sentiment of any kind, but by enlightened self-interest, and was therefore calculable by those who knew how to calculate.
- 47. CHAPTER XI DOMESTIC AFFAIRS: 1588-1601 IT was a boast of Elizabeth that when once her servants were chosen she did not lightly displace them. Difference of opinion from their mistress, or from one another, did not involve resignation or dismissal, because, though they were free to speak their minds, all had to carry out with fidelity and even zeal, whatever policy the Queen prescribed. This condition they accepted; not only the astute and compliant Burghley, but the more eager and opinionated Walsingham; and therefore they had practically a life-tenure of office. Soon after the Armada the first generation of them began to disappear. Bacon, Sussex, and Bedford were already gone. Leicester died in 1588; his brother Warwick, and Mildmay in 1589; Walsingham and Randolph in 1591; Hatton in 1592; Grey de Wilton in 1593; Knollys and Hunsdon in 1596. Of the trusty servants with whom she began her reign, Burghley alone remained. The leading men of the new generation were Robert Cecil, the Treasurer’s second son, trained to business under his father’s eye, and of qualities similar, though inferior; Nottingham (formerly Howard of Effingham), a straightforward man of no great ability, but acceptable to the Queen for his father’s services and his own (and not the less so for his fine presence); the accomplished Buckhurst; the brilliant Raleigh; and, younger than the rest, Essex. The last was the son of a man much favoured by Elizabeth. Leicester was his step-father, Knollys his grandfather, Hunsdon his great-uncle, Walsingham his father-in-law, Burghley his guardian. Ardent, impulsive, presumptuous, a warm friend, a rancorous enemy, profuse in expense, lawless in his amours, jealous of his equals, brooking no superior, impatient of all rule or order that delayed him from leaping at once to the highest place,—he was possessed with a most exaggerated notion of his own capacity, which appears to have been only moderate. As the ward of Burghley he had been much in the company of his future enemy, Robert Cecil, whose sly prim ways were most unlike his own. The contrast did him no harm with the public, to whom the younger man was a Tom Jones and the elder a Blifil. Two vastly abler men, Francis
- 48. Bacon and Raleigh, less advantageously placed, but unhampered with any scruples, were busily trying to profit by the all-pervading animosity of Cecil and Essex. Belonging, as Essex did by his connections, to the inner circle who stood closest to Elizabeth, it was natural that she should take an interest in him, and give him opportunities for turning his showy qualities to account. In 1586 he was sent to the Low Countries as general of cavalry under his step- father, Leicester. He distinguished himself by his fiery valour in the expeditions to Spain, and as commander of the English army in France, though he does not seem to have had any real military talent. But Elizabeth’s regard for him was soon shaken by his presumptuous and unruly behaviour. When he fought a duel with Sir Charles Blount because she had conferred some favour on the latter, she swore “by God’s death it were fitting some one should take him down and teach him better manners, or there were no rule with him.” He displeased her by his quarrels with Cecil and Effingham, and his discontented grumbling. She was highly dissatisfied with his management of the Azores expedition in 1597. In July 1598, at a meeting of the Council, she was provoked by his insolence to strike him; and though after three months he obtained his pardon, he never regained her favour. It was at this time that Burghley died (August 4), in his seventy-eighth year. Elizabeth, though she could call him “a froward old fool” about a trifling matter (March 1596), could not but feel that much was changed when she lost the able and faithful servant who had worked with her for forty years. “She seemeth to take it very grievously, shedding of tears and separating herself from all company.” Buckhurst was the new Treasurer. Essex had for some time cast his eyes on Ireland as a field where glory and power might be won. There can be little doubt that he was already speculating on the advantage that the possession of an army might give him in any difficulty with his rivals or with the Queen herself. Cecil perfidiously advocated his appointment to a post which had been the grave of so many reputations. The Queen at length consented, though reluctantly. Essex was a popular favourite. He had managed—it is not very clear how—to win the confidence of both Puritans and Papists. The general belief was that, for the first time since she had mounted the throne, Elizabeth was afraid of one of her subjects.
- 49. During the whole of the reign Ireland had been a cause of trouble and anxiety. Elizabeth’s treatment of that unhappy country was not more creditable or successful than that of other English statesmen before and after her. There was the same absence of any systematic policy steadily carried out, the same wearisome and disreputable alternation between bursts of savage repression and intervals of pusillanimity, concession, and neglect. In the competition of the various departments of the public service for attention and expenditure, Ireland generally came last. All other needs had to be served first whether at home or abroad. In the early years of the reign the chief trouble lay in Ulster, then the most purely Celtic part of Ireland, and practically untouched by English conquest. Twice, in her weariness of the struggle with Shan O’Neill, Elizabeth conceded to him something like a sub-kingship of Ulster in return for his nominal submission. In the end he was beaten, and his head was fixed on the walls of Dublin Castle (1566). But nothing further was done to anglicise Ulster. During the attempt of the Devonshire adventurers to colonise South Munster (1569-71), and the consequent rebellion, the northern province remained an unconcerned spectator. Nor did it join in the great Desmond rising (1579-83), which, with the insurrection of the Catholic lords of the Pale and the landing of the Pope’s Italians at Smerwick, was the Irish branch of the threefold attack on Elizabeth directed by Gregory XIII. The attempt of the elder Essex to colonise Antrim (1573- 75) was a disastrous failure, and Ulster still remained practically independent of the Dublin Government. The most successful Deputy of the reign was Perrot (1584-87), a valiant soldier and strict ruler, who, after long experience in the Irish wars, had come to the conclusion that what Ireland most wanted was justice. The native chiefs, released from the constant dread of spoliation, and finding that English encroachment was repressed as inflexibly as Irish disorder, became quiet and friendly. But this system did not suit the dominant race. The Deputy was accused to the Queen of seeking to betray the country to the Irish and the Spaniard. Recalled, and put upon his trial for treason, he was found guilty on suborned evidence, and sentenced to death. It is usually said that his real offence was some disrespectful language about the Queen, which he confessed. But it seems that she forbore to take his life precisely because she would not have it thought that she was influenced by personal resentment.
- 50. His successor, Fitzwilliam, was a Deputy of the old sort—greedy, violent, careless of consequences, and always acting on the principle that, as against an Englishman, a Celt had no rights. The execution of MacMahon in Monaghan, and the confiscation of his lands on a trivial pretext, alarmed the North. Ulster had not been bled white like the rest of Ireland. The O’Neills had a nephew of their old hero Shan for their chief, who had been brought up at the English Court and made Earl of Tyrone by Elizabeth. An educated and remarkably able man, he had none of his uncle’s illusions. He clung to his ancestral rights and dignity, but he hoped to preserve them by zealously discharging his obligations as a vassal of the Queen. He served in the war against Desmond, and exerted himself to maintain order in Ulster. But he had no mind to sink into the position of a mere dignified land-owner like the English nobles; nor indeed, under such a Deputy as Fitzwilliam, was he likely to preserve even his lands if he lost his power. Rather than that, he determined to enter into what he knew was a most unequal struggle, on the off-chance of pulling through by help from Spain. It is clear that he was driven into rebellion against his inclination. But when he had once drawn the sword he maintained the struggle against one Deputy after another with wonderful tenacity and resource. For the first time in Irish history, the rebel forces were disciplined and armed like those of the crown, and stood up to them in equal numbers on equal terms. At length, in August 1598, Tyrone inflicted upon Sir Henry Bagnall near Armagh the severest defeat that the English had ever suffered in Ireland; slaying 1500 of his men, and capturing all his artillery and baggage. Insurrections at once broke out all over Ireland. This was the situation with which Essex undertook to deal. He had loudly blamed other Deputies for not vigorously attacking Tyrone in his own country. Vigour was the one military quality which he himself possessed. He went with the title of Lieutenant and Governor-General, and with extraordinary powers, at the head of 21,000 men—such an army as had never been sent to Ireland (April 1599). The Queen, who trembled at the expense, and did not wish to see any of her nobles, least of all Essex, permanently established in a great military command, enjoined him to push at once into Ulster, as he had himself proposed, and finish the war. Instead of doing this, he went south into districts that had been depopulated and desolated by the savage warfare of the last thirty years. Even here he met with discreditable reverses. When he got back to Dublin (July) his army
- 51. was reduced by disease and desertion to less than 5000 men. Disregarding the Queen’s express prohibition, he made his friend Southampton General of horse. When she censured his bad management, he replied with impertinent complaints about the favour she was showing to Cecil, Raleigh, and Cobham, and began to consult with his friends about carrying selected troops over to England to remove them. Rumours of his intention to return reached the Queen. “We do charge you,” she wrote, “as you tender our pleasure, that you adventure not to come out of that kingdom.” He declared that he could not invade Ulster without reinforcements. They were sent, and at length he marched into Louth (September). There he was met by Tyrone, who, in an interview, completely twisted him round his finger, and obtained a cessation of arms and the promise of concessions amounting to what would now be called Home Rule. A few days later, on receipt of an angry letter from the Queen forbidding him to grant any terms without her permission, he deserted his post and hurried to England. The first notice Elizabeth received of this astounding piece of insubordination was his still more astounding incursion into her bedroom, all muddy from his ride, before she was completely dressed (September 28, 1599). Elizabeth seems to have been so much taken aback by the Earl’s unparalleled presumption, that she did not blaze out as might have been expected. She gave him audience an hour or two later, and heard what he had to say. Probably he adopted an injured tone as usual, and inveighed against “that knave Raleigh” and “that sycophant Cobham.” But his insubordination had been gross, and no talking could make it anything else. It was more dangerous than Leicester’s disobedience in 1586, because it came from a vastly more dangerous person. The same afternoon the Queen referred the matter to the Council. Essex was put under arrest, and never saw her again. The more she reflected, the more indignant and alarmed she became. “By God’s son,” she said to Harington, “I am no Queen; this man is above me.” After a delay of nine months, occasioned by his illness, the fallen favourite was brought before a special Commission on the charge of contempt and disobedience, and sentenced to be suspended from his offices and confined to his house during the Queen’s pleasure (June 1600). In a few weeks he was released from arrest, but he could not obtain permission to appear at court, though he implored it in most abject letters. There are persons who consider themselves to be intolerably wronged and persecuted if they cannot have precedence and power over their fellow-
- 52. citizens. Essex was such a person. Instead of being thankful that he had escaped the punishment which under most sovereigns he would have suffered, he entered into criminal plots for coercing, if not overthrowing, the Queen. He urged the Scotch King to enforce the recognition of his title by arms. He tried to persuade Mountjoy, his successor in Ireland, to carry his army to Scotland to co-operate with James. These intrigues were not known to the Government. But it did not escape observation that he was collecting men of the sword in the neighbourhood of his house; that he was holding consultations with suspected nobles and gentlemen (some of whom were afterwards engaged in the Gunpowder Plot); that the Puritan clergy were preaching and praying for his cause; and that there was a certain ferment in the city. Essex was therefore summoned to attend before the Council. Instead of obeying, he flew to arms, with Lords Southampton, Rutland, Sandys, Cromwell, and Monteagle, and about 300 gentlemen. But the citizens of London did not respond to his appeal, and the insurrection was easily suppressed, less than a dozen persons being slain on both sides (February 8, 1601). A more senseless and profligate attempt to overthrow a good government it would be difficult to find in history. It was not dignified by any semblance of principle, and it would sufficiently stamp the character of its author, even if it stood alone as an evidence of his vanity, egotism, and want of common sense. The trial and execution of the principal malefactor followed as a matter of course and without delay (February 25). It would have been scandalous to spare him. Elizabeth had once been fond of him, and had no reason to be ashamed of it. To talk of her “passion” and her “amorous inclination,” as Hume and others have done, is revolting and malignant nonsense. It is creditable to old age when it can take pleasure in the unfolding of bright and promising youth. But royal favour was not good for such a man as Essex. It developed the worst features in his showy but faulty character. As he steadily deteriorated, her regard cooled; but so much of it remained that she tried to amend him by chastisement, “ad correctionem” as she said, “non ad ruinam.” She had long before warned him that, though she had put up with much disrespect to her person, he must not touch her sceptre, or he would be dealt with according to the law of England. She was as good as her word, and, though the memory of it was painful to her, there is not the smallest evidence that she ever repented of having allowed the law to take its course.[16] Only three of the accomplices of Essex were punished
- 53. capitally. The five peers, none of them powerful or formidable, experienced Elizabeth’s accustomed clemency. It has been suggested by an admirer of Essex that he failed in Ireland because his “sensitively attuned nature” shrank from the systematic desolation and starvation afterwards employed by his successor. No evidence is offered for this suggestion. In a letter to the Queen (June 25, 1599) he advocates “burning and spoiling the country in all places,” which method “shall starve the rebels in one year.” This course Mountjoy carried out. With means far inferior to those of Essex, and notwithstanding the landing of 3000 Spaniards at Kinsale (September 1601), he was the first Englishman who completely subdued Ireland. Tyrone surrendered a few days before the Queen’s death. Little has been said in these pages about parliamentary proceedings. The real history of the reign does not lie there. The country was governed wholly by the Queen, with the advice of her Council, and not at all by Parliament. In the forty-five years of her reign there were only thirteen sessions of Parliament. The functions of Parliament were to vote grants of money when the ordinary revenues of the crown were insufficient, and to make laws. Its right in these matters was unquestioned. If the Queen had never wanted subsidies or penal laws against her political and religious opponents (of other laws she often said there were more than enough already), it would never have been summoned at all; nor is there any reason to suppose that the country would have complained as long as it was governed with prudence and success. In fact, to do without Parliaments was distinctly popular, because it meant doing without subsidies. In the thirty years preceding the Armada—the sessions of Parliament being nine—Elizabeth applied for only eight subsidies, and of one of them a portion was remitted. By her economy she not only defrayed the expenses of government out of the ordinary revenue, which, at the end of the reign was about £300,000 a year, but paid off old debts. It was not till the twenty- fourth year of her reign that she discharged the last of her father’s debts, up to which time she had been paying interest on it. Subsequently she even accumulated a small reserve, which, as she told Parliament, was a most necessary thing if she was not to be driven to borrow on sudden emergency. But this reserve vanished immediately she became involved in the great war with Spain; and during the last fifteen years of her life, although she received twelve subsidies, she was always in difficulty for money. She had
- 54. to sell crown lands to the value of £372,000. Parliament, which had voted the usual single subsidies without complaint, grumbled and pretended poverty when she asked for three and even four.[17] Bacon’s famous outburst (1593) about gentlemen having to sell their plate and farmers their brass pots to pay the tax, was a piece of claptrap. The nation was, relatively to former times, rolling in wealth. But the old belief had still considerable strength—that government being the affair of the King, not of his subjects, he should provide for its expenses out of his hereditary income, just as they paid their private expenses out of their private incomes; that he had no more claim to dip into their pockets than they had to dip into his; and that a subsidy, as its name imports, was an occasional and extraordinary assistance furnished as a matter not of duty but of good-will. This might have been healthy doctrine when kings were campaigning on the Continent for personal or dynastic objects. It was out of place when a large expenditure was indispensable for the interests and safety of the country. The grumbling, therefore, about taxation towards the end of the reign was unreasonable and discreditable to the grumblers. The Queen met them with her usual good sense. She explained to them—though, as she correctly said, she was under no constitutional obligation to do so—how the money went, what she had spent on the Spanish war, on Ireland, and in loans to the Dutch and the French King. The plea was unanswerable. Her private expenditure was on a very modest scale. In particular she had never indulged in that besetting and costly sin of princes, palace-building; and this at a time when the noble mansions which still testify to the wealth of the England of that day were rising in every county. Her only extravagance was dress. Some have carped at her collection of jewelry. But jewels, like the silver balustrades of Frederick William I., were a mode of hoarding, and in her later years she reconverted jewels into money to meet the expenses of the State. Modern writers, who so airily blame her for not subsidising more liberally her Scotch, Dutch, and French allies, would find it difficult, if they condescended to particulars, to explain how she was able to give them as much money as she did. It is common to make much of the debate on monopolies in the last Parliament of Elizabeth (1601), as showing the rise of a spirit of resistance to the royal prerogative. I do not think that the report of that debate would convey such an impression to any one reading it without preconceived views. None of the speakers contested the prerogative. They only
- 55. complained that it was being exercised in a way prejudicial to the public interest. If the monopolies had been unimportant, or if the patentees had used their privilege less greedily, there would evidently have been no complaint as to the principle involved. No course of action was decided on, because the Queen intervened by a message in which she stated that she had not been aware of the abuses prevailing, that she was as indignant at them as Parliament could be, and that she would put a stop, not to monopolies, but to such as were injurious. With this message the House of Commons was more than satisfied. As a matter of fact monopolies went on till dealt with by the declaratory statute in the twenty-first year of James I. If the last Tudor handed down the English Constitution to the first Stuart as she had received it from her predecessors, unchanged either in theory or practice, it was far otherwise with the English Church. There are two conflicting views as to the historical position of the Church in this country. According to one it was, all through the Middle Age, National as well as Catholic. The changes which took place at the Reformation made no difference in that respect, and involved no break in its continuity. It is not a Protestant Church. It is still National and still Catholic, resting on precisely the same foundations, and existing by the same title as it did in the days of Dunstan and Becket. According to the other view, the epithets National and Catholic are contradictory. A Church which undergoes radical changes of government, worship, and doctrine is no longer the same Church but a new one, and must be held to have been established by the authority which prescribed these changes, which, in this case, was the Queen and Parliament. The word “Protestant” was avoided in its formularies to make conformity easier for Catholics; but it is a Protestant Church all the same. Whichever of these views is nearer to the truth, it cannot be denied that, by the legislation of Elizabeth the English Church became—what it was not in the Middle Age—a spiritual organisation entirely dependent on the State. This it remains still; the supremacy having been virtually transferred from the crown to Parliament in the next century. I shall not venture to inquire how far this condition of dependence has affected its ability and inclination to perform the part of a true spiritual power. It is enough to say that no act of will on the part of any English statesman has had such important and lasting consequences, for good or for evil, as the decision of Elizabeth to make the Church of England what it is.
- 56. We have seen that the government and worship of the Church were established by Act of Parliament in 1559, and its doctrines in 1571. But when once Elizabeth had placed her ecclesiastical powers beyond dispute, by obtaining statutory sanction for them, she allowed no further interference by Parliament. All its attempts, even at mere discussion of ecclesiastical matters, she peremptorily suppressed. She supplied any further legislation that was needed by virtue of her supremacy, and she exercised her ecclesiastical government by the Court of High Commission. The new Anglican model was acquiesced in by the majority of the nation. But it had, at first, no hearty support except from the Government. The earnest religionists were either Catholics or Puritans. The object of Elizabeth was to compel these two extreme parties to outward conformity of worship. What their real beliefs were she did not care. The large majority of the Catholics showed a loyal and patriotic spirit at the time of the Armada. But they were not treated with confidence by the Government. Great numbers of them were imprisoned or confined in the houses of Protestant gentlemen, by way of precaution, when the Armada was approaching. No Catholic, I believe, was intrusted with any command either by land or sea; and after the danger was over, the persecution, in all its forms, became sharper than ever. There was the less reason for this, inasmuch as it was no secret that the secular priests and the great majority of the English Catholics had become bitterly hostile to the small Jesuitical faction whose treasonable conspiracies had brought so much trouble on their loyal co-religionists. The term “Puritan” is used loosely, though conveniently, to designate several shades of belief. By far the larger number of those to whom it is applied were, and meant to remain, members of the Established Church. They objected to certain ceremonies and vestments. They hoped to procure the abolition of these, and, in the meantime, evaded them when they could. They were what would now be called the Evangelical or Low Church party. They held Calvin’s distinctive doctrines on predestination, as indeed did most of the bishops; but though preferring his Presbyterian organisation, or something like it, they did not treat it as essential. They were broadly distinguished from the Brownists or Independents, then an insignificant minority, who held each congregation to be a church, and therefore protested against the establishment of any national church.
- 57. Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to specialized publications, self-development books, and children's literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system, we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and personal growth! ebookluna.com