Starting Out With Java From Control Structures Through Data Structures 2nd Edition Gaddis Test Bank

Download the full version and explore a variety of test banks
or solution manuals at https://testbankdeal.com
Starting Out With Java From Control Structures
Through Data Structures 2nd Edition Gaddis Test
Bank
_____ Tap the link below to start your download _____
https://testbankdeal.com/product/starting-out-with-java-
from-control-structures-through-data-structures-2nd-edition-
gaddis-test-bank/
Find test banks or solution manuals at testbankdeal.com today!

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit testbankdeal.com
to discover even more!
Starting Out With Java From Control Structures Through
Data Structures 2nd Edition Gaddis Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/starting-out-with-java-from-control-
structures-through-data-structures-2nd-edition-gaddis-solutions-
manual/
Starting Out with Java From Control Structures through
Data Structures 3rd Edition Gaddis Test Bank
structures-through-data-structures-3rd-edition-gaddis-test-bank/
Starting Out with Java From Control Structures through
Data Structures 3rd Edition Gaddis Solutions Manual
structures-through-data-structures-3rd-edition-gaddis-solutions-
manual/
New Products Management 11th Edition Crawford Solutions
Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/new-products-management-11th-edition-
crawford-solutions-manual/

Exploring Medical Language A Student Directed Approach 9th
Edition Brooks Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/exploring-medical-language-a-student-
directed-approach-9th-edition-brooks-test-bank/
Fundamentals of Business Math Canadian 3rd Edition Jerome
Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/fundamentals-of-business-math-
canadian-3rd-edition-jerome-solutions-manual/
Marketing Research Asia-Pacific 4th Edition Zikmund
Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/marketing-research-asia-pacific-4th-
edition-zikmund-solutions-manual/
Daviss Comprehensive Handbook of Laboratory Diagnostic
Tests With Nursing Implications 6th Edition Leeuwen Test
Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/daviss-comprehensive-handbook-of-
laboratory-diagnostic-tests-with-nursing-implications-6th-edition-
leeuwen-test-bank/
Payroll Accounting 2016 26th Edition Bieg Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/payroll-accounting-2016-26th-edition-
bieg-solutions-manual/

Management Leading and Collaborating in a Competitive
World 11th Edition Bateman Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/management-leading-and-collaborating-
in-a-competitive-world-11th-edition-bateman-test-bank/

Gaddis: Starting Out with Java: From Control Structures through Data Structures, 2/e © 2012 Pearson Education
Chapter 7
MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. ________ is a library of classes that do not replace ________, but provide an improved alternative for creating
GUI applications.
a. AWT, Swing
b. Swing, AWT
c. JFC, AWT
d. JFC, Swing
ANS: B
2. Programs that operate in a GUI environment must be
a. event driven
b. in color
c. dialog boxes
d. layout managers
ANS: A
3. In GUI terminology, a container that can be displayed as a window is known
as a _______________.
a. message dialog
b. buffer
c. Swing package
d. frame
ANS: D
4. To end an application, pass this as the argument to the JFrame class's setDefaultCloseOperation()
method.
a. END_ON_CLOSE
b. JFrame.END_ON_CLOSE
c. JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE
d. JFrame.CLOSE_NOT_HIDE
ANS: C
5. The minimize button, maximize button, and close button on a window are sometimes referred to as
a. operations buttons
b. sizing buttons
c. decorations
d. display buttons
ANS: C
6. To use the ActionListener interface, as well as other event listener interfaces, you must have the following
import statement in your code:
a. import java.swing;
b. import java.awt;

c. import java.awt.*;
d. import java.awt.event.*;
ANS: D
7. When you write an action listener class for a JButton component, it must
a. have a method named buttonClicked
b. implement the ActionLIstener interface
c. have a method named actionPerformed which must take an argument of the ActionEvent
type
d. Both b and c.
ANS: D
8. In a Swing application, you create a frame object from the
a. Jlabel class
b. JFrame class
c. Jpanel class
d. AbstractButton class
ANS: B
9. To use the Color class, which is used to set the foreground and background of various objects, use the
following import statement
a. import java.swing;
b. import java.awt;
c. import java.awt.*;
d. import java.awt.event.*;
ANS: C
10. This layout manager arranges components in rows.
a. GridLayout
b. BorderLayout
c. FlowLayout
d. RegionLayout
ANS: C
11. This layout manager arranges components in regions named North, South, East, West, and Center.
a. GridLayout
b. BorderLayout
c. FlowLayout
d. RegionLayout
ANS: B
12. If panel references a JPanel object, which of the following statements adds the GridLayout to it?
a. panel.setLayout(new (GridLayout(2,3));
b. panel.addLayout(new (GridLayout(2,3));

c. panel.GridLayout(2,3);
d. panel.attachLayout(GridLayout(2,3));
ANS: A
13. When using the BorderLayout manager, how many components can each region hold?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 5
d. No limit
ANS: A
14. The GridLayout manager limits each cell to only one component. To put two or more components in a cell,
do this.
a. Resize the cells so they can hold more
b. You can nest panels inside the cells, and add other components to the panels
c. The statement is false. The GridLayout manager does not have this restriction
d. Resize the components to fit in the cell
ANS: B
15. Which of the following statements is not true?
a. Radio buttons are round and check boxes are square.
b. Radio buttons are often grouped together and are mutually exclusive; Check boxes are not
c. Radio buttons and check boxes both implement the ActionListener interface
d. They are all true
ANS: C
16. How many radio buttons can be selected at the same time as the result of the following code?
hours = new JRadioButton("Hours");
minutes = new JRadioButton("Minutes");
seconds = new JRadioButton("Seconds");
days = new JRadioButton("Days");
months = new JRadioButton("Months");
years = new JRadioButton("Years");
timeOfDayButtonGroup = new ButtonGroup();
dateButtonGroup = new ButtonGroup();
timeOfDayButtonGroup.add(hours);
timeOfDayButtonGroup.add(minutes);
timeOfDayButtonGroup.add(seconds);
dateButtonGroup.add(days);
dateButtonGroup.add(months);
dateButtonGroup.add(years);
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4

ANS: B
17. Assume that radio references a JRadioButton object. To click the radio button in code, use the following
statement.
a. radio.Click();
b. Click(radio);
c. Click(radio, true);
d. radio.doClick();
ANS: D
18. The variable panel references a JPanel object. The variable bGroup references a ButtonGroup object,
which contains several button components. If you want to add the buttons to the panel...
a. use the statement, panel.add(bGroup);
b. use the statement, bGroup.add(panel);
c. use the statement, Panel panel = new Panel(bGroup);
d. add each button to panel one at a time, e.g. panel.add(button1);
ANS: D
19. What will be the result of executing the following statement?
panel.setBorder(BorderFactory.createLineBorder(Color.BLUE, 5));
a. The JPanel referenced by panel will have a blue line border that is 5 millimeters thick.
b. The JPanel referenced by panel will have a blue line border that is 5 pixels thick.
c. The JPanel referenced by panel will have a blue line border that is 5 characters thick.
d. The JPanel referenced by panel will have a blue line border that is 5 inches thick.
ANS: B
20. When an application uses many components, rather than deriving just one class from the JFrame class, it is
often better to encapsulate smaller groups of related components and their event listeners into their own class. A
commonly used technique to do this is:
a. To extend a class from the JAbstractButton class to contain other components and their
related code
b. To extend a class from the JComponent class to contain other components and their related code
c. To extend a class from the JPanel class to contain other components and their related code
d. To extend a class from the JFrame class to contain other components and their related code
ANS: C
21. To include Swing and AWT components in your program, use the following import statements
a. import java.swing; import java.awt;
b. import java.swing; import javax.awt;
c. import javax.swing; import java.awt;
d. import javax.swing; import javax.awt;
ANS: C

22. These types of components are coupled with their underlying peers.
a. Lightweight
b. Featherweight
c. Middleweight
d. Heavyweight
ANS: D
23. JFC stands for
a. Java Fundamental Classes
b. Java Foundation Classes
c. Java Fundamental Core
d. Java Frame Class
ANS: B
24. When this is the argument passed to the JFrame class's setDefaultCloseOperation() method, the
application is hidden, but not closed.
a. HIDE_ON_CLOSE
b. JFrame. HIDE_ON_CLOSE
c. JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE
d. JFrame.HIDE_NOT_CLOSE
ANS: B
25. This is a basic window that has a border around it, a title bar, and a set of buttons for minimizing, maximizing,
and closing the window.
a. Pane
b. Container
c. Frame
d. Dialog box
ANS: C
26. Which of the following statements creates a class that is extended from the JFrame class?
a. JFrame DerivedClass = new JFrame();
b. class JFrame DerivedClass;
c. JFrame(DerivedClass);
d. public class DerivedClass extends JFrame{}
ANS: D
27. What does the following statement do?
addButton.addActionListener(new AddButtonListener());
a. Creates an AddButtonListener object
b. Registers the addButton object as an ActionListener with the AddButtonListener
object
c. Creates an AddButtonListener object and registers the AddButtonListener object with
the addButton

d. Nothing, the statement is invalid
ANS: C
28. Event listeners must
a. implement an interface
b. be included in private inner classes
c. not receive any arguments
d. exit the application once it has handled the event
ANS: A
29. If button1 is a JButton object, which of the following statements will make its background blue?
a. button1.makeBackground(BLUE);
b. button1.setBackground(Color.BLUE);
c. button1.makeBackground(Color.BLUE);
d. button1.set.Background(BLUE);
ANS: B
30. This layout manager arranges components in five regions.
a. GridLayout
b. BorderLayout
c. FlowLayout
d. RegionLayout
ANS: B
31. Which of the following is not a rule for the FlowLayout manager?
a. Multiple components can be added to a container that uses a FlowLayout manager
b. New components will be added in a row from left to right
c. When there is no more room in a row, additional components are put on the next row
d. All of these are rules for the FlowLayout manager
ANS: D
32. When a component is added to a region in the BorderLayout manager,
a. the component retains its original size
b. it results in a compile time error, if it is too large
c. the component is stretched so it fills up the entire region
d. the region is resized to fit the component
ANS: C
33. When adding components to a container that is governed by the GridLayout manager,
a. you cannot specify a cell
b. you specify the cell with the row and column numbers in the add statement
c. you must add them starting with the lower, right cell
d. the components are added automatically by filling up the first column, then the second, etc.

ANS: A
34. Which of the following statements is not true?
a. Radio buttons are round and check boxes are square.
b. Radio buttons are often grouped together and are mutually exclusive; Check boxes are not
c. Radio buttons implement ActionListener; Check boxes implement ItemListener
d. All of these are true
ANS: D
35. Why doesn't the following code compile correctly?
import java.awt.*;
import java.awt.event.*;
import javax.swing.*;
public class ColorCheckBoxWindow extends JFrame
{
private JCheckBox greenCheckBox;
private final int WINDOW_WIDTH = 300, WINDOW_HEIGHT = 100;
public ColorCheckBoxWindow()
{
setTitle("Green Check Box");
setSize(WINDOW_WIDTH, WINDOW_HEIGHT);
setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
greenCheckBox = new JCheckBox("Green");
greenCheckBox.addItemListener(new CheckBoxListener());
setLayout(new FlowLayout());
add(greenCheckBox);
setVisible(true);
}
public void itemStateChanged(ItemEvent e)
{
if (e.getSource() == greenCheckBox)
{
System.exit(0);
}
}
}
a. ColorCheckBoxWindow is not implementing the correct listener
b. The button cannot be added to the content pane
c. The itemStateChanged method cannot be coded here
d. greenCheckBox should not be a private member
ANS: C
36. Assume that the variable checkbox references a JCheckBox object. To determine whether the check box has
been selected, use the following code.
a. if (isSelected(checkBox)) {/*code to execute, if selected*/}
b. if (checkBox.isSelected()) {/*code to execute, if selected*/}
c. if (checkBox) {/*code to execute, if selected*/}
d. if (checkBox.doClick()) {/*code to execute, if selected*/}
ANS: B

37. What will be the result of executing the following statement?
panel.setBorder(BorderFactory.createTitleBorder("Title"));
a. The JPanel referenced by panel will have an etched border with the title "Title" displayed on it.
b. The JPanel referenced by panel will have an empty border with the title "Title" displayed on it.
c. The JPanel referenced by panel will have a line border with the title "Title" displayed on it.
d. The JPanel referenced by panel will have a compound border with the title "Title" displayed on
it.
ANS: A
38. When an application uses many components, instead of extending just one class from the JFrame class, a better
approach is to
a. break the application into several smaller applications
b. reconsider the design of the application
c. encapsulate smaller groups of related components and their event listeners into their own classes
d. just go ahead and do it in one large class
ANS: C
39. This is a graphic image that is displayed while an application loads into memory and starts up.
a. The Java 6 trademark screen
b. Memory usage screen
c. Blue screen of death
d. Splash screen
ANS: D
40. You would use this command at the operating system command line to execute the code in the
MyApplication class and display the graphic image Logo.jpg as a splash screen.
a. java MyApplication Logo.jpg
b. java -splash:Logo.jpg MyApplication
c. java MyApplication –splash
d. java Logo.jpg –splash:MyApplication
ANS: B
TRUE/FALSE
1. A GUI program automatically stops executing when the end of the main method is reached.
ANS: F
2. A common technique for writing an event listener class is to write it as a private inner class inside the class that
creates the GUI.
ANS: T

3. The following statement adds the FlowLayout manager to the container, centers the components, and
separates the components with a gap of 10 pixels.
setLayout(new FlowLayout());
ANS: F
4. Check boxes may be grouped in a ButtonGroup like radio buttons are.
ANS: T
5. The System.exit method will end the application.
ANS: T
6. The ActionEvent argument that is passed to an action listener's actionPerformed method is the event
object that was generated in response to an event.
ANS: T
7. The FlowLayout manager does not allow the programmer to align components.
ANS: F
8. You must use the statement import java.swing.*; in order to use the ItemListener interface.
ANS: F
9. When a splash screen is displayed, the application does not load and execute until the user clicks the splash
screen image with the mouse.
ANS: F
10. In Java, the ability to display splash screens was introduced in Java 6.
ANS: T

Other documents randomly have
different content

“That she allowed and embraced the same (this was a plan for her
own liberty).
“That she thereupon made them an ample despatch (which was
the letter to Babington), with directions for all things necessary for
the execution of what was proposed.
“That every one of them should give the best assistance they
could for effecting the enterprise.
“The Bishop of Glasgow to travel to Rome by all means to advance
the correspondence of the Pope with the King of Spain, and to try to
set up some new faction against that of England. In France to deal
with the Duke of Guise either to keep France occupied, or, peace
being made, to join with the King of Spain in this enterprise.
“Sir Francis Englefeld and Lord Paget to be earnest in Spain with
the King in her name for his full resolution upon the overtures to be
made him by Mendoza, and thereupon for his advice when and how
his forces shall march.
“To draw the French King's affection from the Scottish Queen and
incense him against her and her servants, and particularly for the
delivery of Morgan and Paget—
(1) By showing the said Queen and her servants' devotion to
Spanish causes to the prejudice of the Crown of France.
“The extract of her own despatch to Charles Paget and Mendoza
of 20th May 1586 concerning the delivery of her son into the King of
Spain's hands, and gift of this Crown unto the Spaniard by
testament.” (This was not the Crown of England, and her letters—
21st May 1586—must be referred to in order to understand the
matter. See appendix.)
(2) “By the extract whereby Morgan is discovered to have had
intelligence and practised with Mendoza both against the Queen and
the French King even since his imprisonment.”

(3) “By proving Paget and Morgan to have been special dealers
against Elizabeth. For charging of Paget particularly by his own letter
of 29th May proposing the enterprise to the Scottish Queen.
(4) “For charging Morgan particularly by his own confession to
have been a principal instigator of the plot taken up with Creyton the
Jesuit with the Duke of Guise, the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Pope's
Nuncio, and Father Claude. That he was privy to Gifford's practices
in England, who set Savage at work to kill Elizabeth, and was to
have come over to effect the same (Phillips is founding on the
interpolations); that he was privy to Ballard coming into England and
the cause, Ballard also was a practiser against the Queen's person
(Elizabeth).
“Lastly, the furtherance of his delivery whereby may appear to the
King how both he and Her Majesty were abused in the perusal of
Morgan's papers when he was first demanded.”
“The papers were concealed and his proceedings disguised by
Cherelles and others more careful of the Queen of Scots and the
Queen's rebels than of their Master's honour and satisfaction.”
After reading this paper the reader will naturally suppose that the
Queen of Scots was a wicked person to get up an agitation among
the Catholics of France and Spain for the invasion of England and
the consequent removal of Elizabeth from the English Crown. That
such were the wishes of the Catholics will not be denied, but the
connection of Mary with such a revolutionary scheme was one of the
cleverest acts of Walsingham and Phillips the spy. We have printed
six letters in the appendix, which are of great importance in
considering this complexion of the matter. No. vi., which is a genuine
letter of the Queen, should be read first. In it, though dated so late
as 27th July, there is no reference to such a thing, and Mendoza was
one of her most confidential friends. The paper which we have just
reproduced is evidently founded on Nos. i. and v., Queen Mary to
Charles Paget. These two letters are in the State Paper Office in the

handwriting of Phillips, and may be set down as forgeries. We have
no evidence save that of Phillips that Queen Mary wrote these two
letters, and until reliable proof is produced they must be regarded as
bogus productions. Whether Paget wrote No. ii. it is impossible to
determine.
In the investigation of this matter we have to bear in mind that
the Babington Conspiracy and the Babington Plot were two separate
and distinct schemes. The former was for the assassination of
Elizabeth, fabricated and tacked on by Walsingham to Babington's
letter proposing Mary's liberation; the latter was Babington's plot for
Mary's liberation only and for nothing else, which neither Babington
nor Mary ever denied.

CHAPTER III
Interview between Queen Mary and Paulet at Fotheringay—Elizabeth nominates
commissioners for the trial—Elizabeth's commission to Burghley and
Walsingham to conduct the trial—Important letter, Elizabeth to Burghley, Mary's
sentence prearranged—The commissioners in Mary's bedchamber—The three
private interviews—The Lord Chancellor Bromley opens the trial—Mary exposes
Walsingham's duplicity (Petit's version)—Close of the first day and conversation
with her physician—Sentence of death—Burghley writes Davison—The gross
illegality of the trial exposed—The commissioners in the Star Chamber—Tytler's
opinion of the Babington Plot—Mary Seton's letter to Courcelles—Paulet to
Walsingham, 24th October 1586.
After Queen Mary's pathetic letters to the French and Spanish
Ambassadors at the end of July (see pp. 304-5) no further
communications of hers are to be found for four months. On 23rd
November she received official notice of her death sentence, and on
that overwhelming occasion she wrote to the Pope, to Henry III., to
the Duke of Guise and the Archbishop of Glasgow, informing them of
the appalling event. What happened to her during these four months
is so far recorded by Bourgoyne. It was a painful and exciting period
for her and her household. The State Paper Office as regards Mary is
practically silent for the time, but Elizabeth and her court were in a
state of great activity.
In order to understand the situation, it will be necessary to make
a brief reference to the events of these four months. The time was
mainly occupied with schemes of Walsingham for getting the
Scottish Queen involved in the so-called Babington Conspiracy.
These plots were conceived and developed with all the skill and
audacity of men educated for the work. Walsingham and Phillips the
spy occupied the chess-board, and their object was to “checkmate

the Queen.” A startling move took place on 2nd August, when
Phillips desired Walsingham to order Babington's arrest; and on the
following day Francis Myles wrote Walsingham recommending
Ballard's apprehension, while Phillips asked a warrant to do so. Same
day Babington announced to Queen Mary the treachery of one of his
companions (Maude), and begged her not to falter, as it was an
honourable enterprise (his plot for her release): “What they could
and would they would perform or die.” This letter has been copied
three times by Walsingham's spies who intercepted Mary's letters,
and this shows how important these men regarded it as a weapon
against herself. Their actions were prompt. Then came the
kidnapping plot, when the Scottish Queen was taken she knew not
where. There is also recorded the so-called confessions of Savage as
to the Babington Plot and his knowledge of those who practised
against Elizabeth. This paper is in the handwriting of Phillips, which
suggests forgery. A few days later, namely, on 20th August,
Courcelles wrote Pinart that forces were being levied in Scotland to
aid Elizabeth, and that they were under the command of the Master
of Gray. On 4th September Walsingham wrote Phillips that Curle
admits receipt of Babington's letters and the Queen of Scots'
answer; Phillips to see Elizabeth and get her orders as to granting
her favour to Curle in the hope of drawing information out of him.
On the same day Walsingham acquainted Paulet with Elizabeth's
orders as to Mary's treatment: “They are in consultation about
having her brought to the Tower and proceeded against according to
statute made in last Parliament.” On the same day are recorded Nau
and Curle's confessions about Mary's letter to Babington (in the
handwriting of Phillips). On 10th September Nau wrote Elizabeth
that he knew nothing whatever of the enterprise more than is
contained in the enclosed, which protests that Queen Mary had no
connection whatever with the design of Babington and others. There
is a vacancy of seventeen days on the Record, and on 27th
September it is recorded that Burghley ordered Walsingham to send
Phillips for certain letters which would be wanted at the meeting of
the lords next morning.

After a fatiguing journey of four days under much privation and
suffering, Queen Mary arrived at Fotheringay on Sunday, 25th
September. The journey is fully described by Bourgoyne. For a week
after her arrival there are no entries in the Journal, from which we
infer that she was for that period undisturbed by her persecutors.
But on the following Saturday, 1st October, the dark shadow of
Elizabeth was felt at Fotheringay. Paulet, in his usual insolent
manner, communicated to Mary one of Elizabeth's characteristic
messages: “That she had sufficient proof to contradict what Mary
had said to Gorges” (see Bourgoyne, p. 189). She was careful,
however, never to produce that proof. These words were doubtless
an invention for the purpose of enabling her to convey what really
was the message: “That the Queen of England was to send some
lords and counsellors to speak to her,” e.g. Mary's trial and
condemnation. Elizabeth at this date had evidently resolved on
Mary's execution and how she was to accomplish it. On the same
day Paulet again had an interview with Queen Mary in order to
torture her a little more about the bogus conspiracy against
Elizabeth's life. He desired her to ask pardon of Elizabeth and
confess her fault. Mary's elastic spirit got the better of her, and she
said ironically that “his proposal reminded her of what one would say
to children when one wanted them to confess.” Paulet, who was
destitute of humour, remained silent as if struck dumb. His
importunity to get Mary to “confess something,” as he put it, was a
trick to inveigle her, but it failed. This must have been a great
disappointment to Elizabeth, for she had no evidence to prove her
case. Elizabeth nominated the commissioners for Queen Mary's trial.
The commission was issued on 5th October to forty-six persons,
and included peers, privy councillors, the Lord Chancellor, five
judges, and the Crown lawyers, constituting them a court to inquire
into and determine all offences committed by the Scottish Queen
against the statute of the 27th year of Elizabeth. Shrewsbury and
ten others declined to serve on this commission. The commissioners
arrived at Fotheringay on 11th October, and Bromley and Burghley
were appointed to conduct the trial. Elizabeth could not take the life

of the Scottish Queen without the formality of a trial, and she
therefore made her arrangements for an imposing function, so as to
satisfy the public mind that she was doing her duty and that the trial
was of the utmost importance, being no less than to determine a
conspiracy against her own life and an invasion of England. In an
age when the people were grossly ignorant and probably
superstitious, a charge like this, on its becoming publicly known, was
bound to set the people against the Scottish Queen.

MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS.
From the Collection of Lord Elphinstone, at Carberry Tower.
After the arrival of the commissioners we have the solemn farce of
“preaching and prayers” at the chapel of Fotheringay, which Sir
Walter Mildmay and others attended as a prelude to the trial. When
we consider that these men came there (a) to try an innocent
person, (b) that they had no proof, (c) that they had their
Sovereign's command to condemn her with or without proof, this
service was a mockery. It was not a Catholic service, consequently
Mary had nothing to do with it. And in anticipation of what was
coming, we have Elizabeth's really first insolent letter to Mary as
referred to by Bourgoyne, in which she addresses her as “Madam”
and appends simply her signature “Elizabeth.” No one can realise
how keenly Mary felt this insult, while Bourgoyne passes it over as
evidently too painful to be recorded.
The impatience of the English Queen to have the captive tried and
executed is manifest from the following paper, which conveys her
instructions on the subject. Burghley and Walsingham were to use
their discretion respecting the manner of first communicating with
Mary, in respect of any private interview, if she should desire one,
and likewise as to the expediency of admitting the public.
Commission from Queen Elizabeth to Lord Burghley and
Walsingham, 7th October 1586:—
“Whereas in the course of your proceedings at Fotheringay it has
not yet been considered what form is to be kept by you and others
of the commissioners in acquainting the Scottish Queen with our
pleasure and the delivering of our letters (a matter notwithstanding
fit to have been thought on), or whether to send some two or three
of the nobility and council to her to that effect, or to commit the
same only to the charge of Sir Amias Paulet, in whose custody she
presently remaineth. We have thought good to put you in mind
thereof, and in case any scruple arise expressly to authorise you to

proceed as in your judgment is most conformable to our honour and
service.
“It may be that she may desire to have private conference with
some of you, with whom she may offer to deal more frankly than
before the whole number, wherein you may happen to make some
difficulty without special warrant and direction from us. We authorise
you, in case any such request be made, and that you find it
expedient to make choice of two, three, or four of the nobility and
council there, besides yourself, to repair privately to her to hear
what she has to say and deliver to you without prejudice,
notwithstanding that commission and warrant we have already given
for your guidance, and where also we are informed that many
private persons, as well as strangers as of our own subjects
(amongst whom we hear are many ill-affected), are already gone
down to the place of your meeting, to observe and hearken after the
doings there.
“Forasmuch as under this cloak there may resort thither some bad
and dangerous men, whose conduct at such a time may penetrate to
the heart of our service, we think it should be well considered
whether it be expedient to have the proceedings against her so
public that every man may hear, or such only as by the
commissioners shall be admitted; as also, whether in case she desire
to hear her servants, Nau, Curle, and Parker, personally to testify
those things they have confessed against her, it shall be necessary
to have them there, or to proceed otherwise without them, which
points we have thought meet be presented to you.”
Queen Elizabeth to Lord Burghley and Walsingham, 8th October
1586:—
“Whereas the Scottish Queen may probably desire a conference
with some of you our commissioners during your abode at
Fotheringay, as yet you have not been authorised to assent by any
special directions from us, our pleasure is, in case any such request

be made, that you two with other two, three, or four of our council
there, do resort to her to hear what she shall have to say to you,
and thereafter, if you find cause, to advise us. And these our letters
shall be to you, and the rest of our council whom you shall think
meet to join you, sufficient warrant and discharge in this behalf.”
The following is an important letter in judging of the policy and
conduct of Elizabeth. It was written before the trial took place, and
its date would be between the 1st and 14th October:
“Upon the examination and trial of the cause, you shall by verdict
find the said Queen guilty of the crime wherewith she standeth
charged.”
These are momentous words. The trial at Fotheringay was
therefore a mockery of justice, as Queen Mary's fate was sealed long
before by the irrevocable edict of the English Queen. Lord Burghley
and others of the commissioners, Walsingham excepted, must have
felt themselves in a position of great difficulty and responsibility in
convicting the Scottish Queen contrary to the general consensus of
opinion, and without being able to produce any bonâ fide proof.
They, however, could not help themselves. They must obey the edict
or take the consequences. This was the greatest blunder the English
Queen ever committed, and this fact dawned upon her the morning
after Queen Mary's death. During the remaining years of her life she
was tortured day by day by an evil conscience, and died a miserable
death:—
Queen Elizabeth to Lord Burghley:
“Whereas by your letter received we find that the Scottish Queen
absolutely refuses to submit herself to trial or make any answer to
such things as by you and the rest of our commissioners she is to be
charged with; and that notwithstanding you are determined to
proceed to sentence against her, according to our commission given

you, we have thought good to let you understand that upon the
examination and trial of the cause you shall by verdict find the said
Queen guilty of the crimes wherewith she stands charged; and that
you accordingly proceed to the sentence against her. Yet do we find
it meet, and such is our pleasure, that you nevertheless forbear the
pronouncing thereof until you have made your personal return to our
presence and reported to us your proceedings and opinions, unless
you find it may prejudice your principal commission or hinder our
service to advise us and abide our further answer. And this shall be
to you and the rest of the commissioners sufficient warrant and
discharge.” [6]
This is a letter that has not been sufficiently brought to the front
by historians of Queen Mary. It practically settles the question of the
Babington Conspiracy, and stamps that plot, so far as the life of
Elizabeth is concerned, as a purely bogus transaction. If the Queen
of England could have proved her case or identified the Scottish
Queen with it she would never have written this letter. In the face of
this communication, which condemned Queen Mary before she was
heard, the conclusion is inevitable that the Babington Conspiracy
against Elizabeth was a huge fraud, unknown to the Scottish Queen,
fabricated by Walsingham and Phillips, proclaimed to the world in all
sincerity by Lord Burghley, and having its inspiration directly from
the Queen of England. In all this the character of Elizabeth is quite
intelligible, her ideas of the eternal principles of justice such as no
one can misapprehend, while students of history must form their
own opinion, after perusing this letter, how far she was responsible
for the deliberate murder of the Queen of Scots, whom she had
tortured nineteen years in captivity.
An important interview took place on 12th October between
Queen Mary and Sir Walter Mildmay, Edward Barker, and Paulet,
when they delivered to her a letter from Elizabeth. The object of the
interview was to persuade Mary to stand her trial. After she had read
Elizabeth's letter she said she was sorry that the English Queen was

so ill-disposed to her; that after so many promises made on her
behalf she found she was neglected, and though she had
forewarned things dangerous to her and the State, she was not
believed but contemned. And the Act of Parliament lately passed
gave her sufficient understanding what was intended against her.
In the afternoon of the same day a second interview took place,
the deputation waiting to know if she adhered to her former
answers. She asked them to be read over and she would consider
them. That being done, she said they were all right. She had omitted
in the morning to reply to Elizabeth's remark that “because she
(Mary) had enjoyed and was under the protection of her laws,
therefore she was subject to be tried by them.” Her answer was that
she came into this realm for safety, and ever since had been kept a
prisoner, so that she enjoyed no protection from the laws of this
realm and no benefit therefrom; neither was it lawful for her to take
notice of the laws from any man. This she wished to add to her
former answers.
The third interview took place the following day, 13th October,
when Bromley and Burghley spoke with her. They said, in a very
harsh manner, that the statements of the two previous interviews
were insufficient; that neither her pretended captivity nor her claim
of privilege of being born a queen could exempt her from answering
in this realm to such a crime as she was charged with. They wanted
a definite reply whether she meant to continue in her refusal of
appearing before the commissioners to answer the charge; and
though they might justly proceed to trial without her presence, or
any further notice of her, yet in honour, and because of Elizabeth's
good disposition to justice, they desired her to alter her answer and
to hear what should be produced and proved against her. They
wished to convince her that in this manner of proceeding nothing
was offered or intended against her but what was conform to the
laws of the realm and to justice. They required her immediate
answer, and gave her to understand that if she refused the

commissioners were to proceed with the trial without further
information.
To this arrogant speech the Queen replied that she was no subject
of the realm of England, and would rather die than become one. She
was prepared to affirm on oath that she never did evil to the Queen
or the State of England, and was not to be proceeded against, as
she was no criminal; therefore she adhered to her former answer
and protestation. She might answer before a free Parliament, but
she knew not what obligation or promises some of the
commissioners had come under before seeing her. She thought all
their procedure merely formal, as she believed she was already
condemned by those who should try her.
It is necessary to observe at this point that Elizabeth wrote
Burghley on 12th October that as the Scottish Queen refuses to
submit to be tried, she requests that, “in case they proceed and find
her guilty, they are to defer passing sentence until they return to her
and report proceedings.”
The question naturally arises, how did Elizabeth know on 12th
October that Mary refused to submit to be tried, when it was on that
same day that Mary made the announcement? The one Queen was
at Windsor, the other at Fotheringay, and the transmission of letters
at that period was slow. Elizabeth did not and could not know on the
12th October what happened at Fotheringay on the same date; she
could not but be aware that the Scottish Queen would protest
against any such proposal as being tried, and the letter to Burghley
was simply a part of her policy to have Mary executed
notwithstanding any trial.
On the morning of 14th October the trial began, when Bromley
opened the proceedings charging Mary with the Babington
Conspiracy. The Queen, notwithstanding the interview of the
previous day, defended herself with great eloquence. It was the
crowning effort of her life, in spite of the exertions of Bromley and
Burghley to crush her. In asserting her innocence she “protested

before the living God that she loved the Queen of England,” and in
her concluding sentence she “appealed to Almighty God, her Church,
and all Christian princes, and the Estates of the kingdom, she was
ready and prepared to sustain and defend her honour as an innocent
person.” She charged Walsingham as being her enemy. Whether she
knew of his interpolations on her letters is not clear, but she
undoubtedly suspected him.
Walsingham's reply was significant and cunning: “He bore no ill
will to anyone; he had never attempted anyone's life (yet he was
plotting against Queen Mary's life at the time he was speaking), and
protested that he was a gentleman, and a faithful servant of his
mistress.” No one will doubt the last remark, and no one will believe
the words that go before. Mary had charged him with being in
communication with Ballard, one of the conspirators. If she had
followed up this line of argument she would have defeated her
accusers, but she was not allowed to produce a single witness nor to
refer to her letters, and therefore could only say what she
imperfectly remembered.
Petit's version of the Walsingham incident varies from this. She
said, addressing him haughtily, “Do you think, Master Secretary, that
I am not aware of the artifices you use against me with such knavish
cruelty? Your spies beset me on all sides; but you perhaps do not
know that many of those spies have made false depositions, and
have warned me of what you are about. And if he has so acted, my
lords, how shall I be assured that he has not forged my cyphers to
put me to death, when I know he has conspired against my child's
life and mine?”
Those withering words, falling suddenly and without warning on
the head of the guilty Walsingham, called forth a quick reply: “God is
my witness,” exclaimed he, “that in private I have done nothing but
what an honest man ought to have done, and in public I have done
nothing unworthy of my office. I have carefully sifted the
conspiracies against Elizabeth, and had Ballard tendered me his
services I should have accepted them.”

Queen Mary: “Give no more heed to the words of those who
slander me than I do to the statements of those who betray you. No
value is to be attached to the testimony of those spies or agents
whose words always give the lie to their hearts. Do not believe that I
have been vain enough to wish that harm should be done to
Elizabeth. No; I shall never seek her ruin at the cost of my honour,
my conscience, or my salvation. Your proceedings are unjust:
passages are taken from my letters, and their real meaning twisted;
the originals were taken from me; neither the religion I profess nor
my sacred character as a queen respected. My lords, if my personal
feelings can make one sympathetic chord vibrate in your bosoms,
think of the royal majesty insulted in my person; think of the
example which you set; think of your own Queen, who was, like me,
wrongly mixed up in a conspiracy. I am accused of having written to
Christian princes in the interest of my freedom. I confess I have
done so, and I should do so again. What human creature, O good
God, would not do the same to escape from a captivity such as
mine! You lay to my charge my letters to Babington. Well, be it so, I
deny them not; only show me a single word in them about Elizabeth,
and then I shall allow your right to prosecute me.”
That Mary was so persistently attacked and importuned about this,
first by Gorges, then by Paulet, Bromley, and Burghley, without
proof, indicates pretty clearly:—
1. That she was ignorant of the so-called assassination plot.
2. That the interpolations on her letter to Babington were the
work of Walsingham.
3. That the importunity of Elizabeth's ministers was by Elizabeth's
express command, and was part of a deliberate plan to incriminate
Mary, in order to justify her execution.
4. That this course was considered the most politic in order to
defend their action before the crowned heads of Europe.

To the unlearned in those times a charge of this kind instituted by
the Queen of England would, as already stated, be calculated to
raise great suspicions against the Queen of Scots.
There is some similarity between the murderers of Darnley
meeting solemnly at the Privy Council and resolving to prosecute
and punish the murderers, and this trial at Fotheringay, when
Elizabeth, who was responsible for the conspiracy against her own
life, resolved to punish the authors of that conspiracy. In view of
this, the speech of the Lord Chancellor in opening the case is an
extraordinary exhibition of the corrupt morality of the period. The
scheme to incriminate Mary was not a secret one. Its execution by
Walsingham and others would make it universally known at the
English court. Of the conduct of Elizabeth's ministers in this matter
there is only one explanation, and that was their fear of death. They
were presumably terrified by such a bloodthirsty woman, and were
glad to do anything rather than irritate her. Mary told them that
Babington's plot was simply to release her, and she demanded to see
any letter of hers referring to a conspiracy against Elizabeth. But no
such letter could be produced; only copies, and these interpolated.
It would appear from Bourgoyne that during the trial the manner
of the prosecutors was “to keep reading or speaking, in order to
persuade the lords that she was guilty.” All this was doubtless
prearranged. When the Queen returned to her chamber she said to
Bourgoyne that the trial put her in mind of that of Jesus Christ. They
did to her in her place as the Jews did to Him: “Away with Him,
crucify Him.” She saw that she was practically condemned, and that
nothing could save her. She appealed to Almighty God as the judge
of her innocence, and demanded a public trial. This they refused,
and this must be regarded as a proof of the weakness of their case.
The trial at Fotheringay was private and limited to Elizabeth's
commissioners and a very few others. Burghley at the close of the
Queen's speech tried to make a point against her by charging her
with wearing the arms of England. To charge the captive queen with
that when she had been nineteen years in captivity was an

inexcusable and heartless proceeding, and shows how little better he
was than his mistress. In regard to Nau and Curle, Queen Mary said
she could not answer for them what they had written about this
enterprise (conspiracy); that they had done it of themselves without
her knowledge. Nau had been a traitor for about a year before this,
and there is no doubt that anything he said against her, though void
of truth, would be greedily devoured by Elizabeth's ministers. Mary
said that she and Nau had many quarrels because she would not
give in to his ideas and would not instruct him. He did her great
harm, and to save themselves they had accused her.
When Elizabeth gave sentence of death Bourgoyne says there was
great excitement in Parliament over it. We do not doubt this, for
every member of Parliament outside of Elizabeth's ministers could
not but be impressed with Mary's eloquent words and with her
innocence, and with Elizabeth's tyrannical conduct. The treatment of
Mary by her tormentors was still further illustrated. All her last
requests were refused by Paulet, and eventually she was not allowed
to write a letter without showing it to him and allowing him to read
it. Had the Crown of Scotland ever reached a lower depth?
On the evening of the second day of the trial, 15th October,
Burghley appears to have written the following letter to Davison, one
of Elizabeth's secretaries. As Davison would put the letter before his
mistress, and Burghley knew that, that would account for the
wording of it. The letter is not creditable to Burghley. It was a dish
prepared to suit the palate of Elizabeth. “I did so encounter her
(Mary) with the reasons, etc., as she had not the advantage she
looked for.” Why was Queen Mary there at all?
Burghley, from his position, could not but be aware of the
tampering with her letters; that he could produce no authentic proof
against her; that before the trial he had Elizabeth's order to
condemn her; and this letter to Davison was therefore a
discreditable communication from the first minister of the Crown:
—“This Queen of the Castle (Mary at Fotheringay) was content to
appear again before us in public to be heard, but in truth not to be

heard for her defence, for she could say nothing but negatively that
the points of the letters that concerned the practice against the
Queen's person (Elizabeth) were never by her written, nor of her
knowledge; the rest for invasion, for escaping by force, she would
neither deny nor affirm. But her intention was by long, artificial
speeches to move pity, to lay all the blame on the Queen's Majesty,
or rather on the Privy Council, stating that all the troubles of the
past did ensue because of her reasonable offers and our refusals;
and in these her speeches I did so encounter her with reasons out of
my knowledge and experience as she had not that advantage she
looked for; as I am sure the auditory did find her case not pitiable,
her allegations untrue, by which means great debate fell yesternight
very long, and this day renewed with great vigour. And we find all
persons in the commission fully satisfied, as by Her Majesty's order
judgment will be given at our next meeting; but the record will not
be provided in five or six days, and that was our reason why, if we
had proceeded to judgment, we should have tarried five or six days
more. And surely the country could not bear it by the waste of
bread, specially our company being there, and within six miles above
two thousand horsemen, but by reason of Her Majesty's letter we of
her Privy Council, that is, the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Rich, the
Secretary, and myself, only did procure this prorogation for the other
two causes.”
Mary was evidently not aware that, by an Act passed fifteen years
before, witnesses in trials for high treason were required to be
confronted with the accused, and not one of her six-and-thirty
judges had the courage to inform her of this important fact. All
remained deaf to her appeals; her secretaries were not examined
and her notes were not produced. Nothing could have been more
utterly worthless than the evidence produced against her. The letters
were alleged to be copies of cyphers, but by whom the cyphers were
deciphered, and by whom the copies were made, the commissioners
were not informed, nor did they ask a question on the subject. [7]

On the second day neither the attorney-general nor the solicitor-
general nor the Queen's sergeant took any part in the proceedings.
Whether he was dissatisfied with the mode in which they had
conducted the case, or whether he was desirous of displaying his
erudition and his animosity against the Scottish Queen, Burghley
took upon himself the whole management of the trial. Such conduct
on the part of a judge was neither dignified nor decent, nor do we
find in any other of the State trials of this reign so marked a
departure from established usage. It may perhaps be taken as a
proof of his declining powers that he had even the vanity to boast of
the skill and success with which he had encountered and defeated
the “Queen of the Castle,” as he facetiously termed the woman
against whose life and reputation he had plotted incessantly for
more than twenty years. [8]
On the 25th October the commissioners met in the Star Chamber,
Westminster. With one exception, they found Mary guilty, not of the
various matters laid to her charge by Burghley, but of having
compassed and imagined since 1st June divers matters “tending to
the hurt, death, and destruction of the Queen of England.” Lord
Zouch alone had the spirit to dissent from the sentence, declaring
that he was not satisfied that she had done so. Thus ended the most
disgraceful of all the judicial iniquities which disgrace the history of
England. No witnesses were examined, and of the various
documents produced against her not one was original. They were
not even copies of written papers; they were only alleged to be
copies of cyphers, on the credit of men who were not confronted
with the accused, and whose signatures attached to their alleged
confessions were either obtained through fear of torture or forged
by Phillips. [9] It is evident that the utmost exertions and the
strictest search on the part of Mary's enemies, directed by all the
skill and vigour of Walsingham and carried into effect by the
unscrupulous artifices and ingenuity of Phillips, had not been able to
find the smallest scrap of evidence under Mary's hand which could
connect her with the plot against Elizabeth's life. The whole case has

been examined and carefully weighed, and the result is a
confirmation of Mary's innocence. [10]
That devoted friend of the Queen of Scots, Marie Seton, one of
the four Maries, now living in the convent of Rheims in France, had
evidently heard of the overwhelming calamity which had befallen her
old mistress, and writing a private letter to Courcelles, the French
Ambassador in Scotland, sent by Henry III. to urge Queen Mary's
cause before Elizabeth, under date 21st October 1586, said:—
“If she had not had a long experience of his courtesy she would
complain of lack of news, as she only heard yesterday of his going to
Scotland, in a letter from Paris on the return of M. d'Epinart's son.
Begs to recall herself to his memory. It is nearly twenty years since
Marie Seton left Scotland, and almost all her relatives and friends
had died during that period: still there must be some who would let
her know any news that he might be kind enough to tell her. She
apologises for a short letter, but has to write in great haste. She only
adds that she is in great trouble and anxiety over the news which
the talk in France has of fresh troubles to the Queen her mistress,
and commends M. de Courcelles to God, praying to God that he may
be happier than she is,” etc.
The espionage of the Scottish Queen continued with unabated
energy. Paulet was careful not to name her in his correspondence
with his august mistress, but used the expression “this Queen.” This
pleased Elizabeth, and Paulet had her instructions to report daily
everything that passed even to the minutest particular. The following
letter, Paulet to Walsingham, 24th October 1586, enables us to
understand the sort of material Elizabeth desired and relished. This
illiterate individual instructing the Queen of Scots what books to read
is highly ludicrous. Mary's sarcasm would doubtless be exercised on
such a tempting opportunity, but Paulet takes care not to record it:—
“I took occasion yesterday, accompanied with Stallenge, to visit
this Queen, who hath been troubled these two days past with a

defluxion in one of her shoulders. I see no change in her from her
former quietness and security certified in my last letter, careful to
have her chambers put in good order, desirous to have divers things
provided for her own necessary use, expecting to have her money
shortly restored, taking pleasure in trifling toys, and in the whole
course of her speech free from grief of mind to all outward
appearance. I tarried with her one hour and a half at the least,
which I did on purpose to feel her disposition, and moving no new
matter myself, suffered her to go from subject to subject at her
pleasure. She had a long conversation with Lady Shrewsbury of the
Lord of Abergavenny, and of some other things not worthy of notice.
This only I thought good to signify to you, that failing in the talk of
the late assembly here, and having glanced at Lord Zouch for his
speech in her chamber, and also of Lord Morley for some things
delivered by him to the lords sitting next to him, which she said she
overheard and told him so in the open assembly. She was curious to
be informed of the names of those sitting in such a place, and of
others sitting in other places, saying that one had said little, another
somewhat more, and others very much. I told her that I might easily
perceive by her reference to the lords which she had named that she
was much inclined to think ill of all of those who spoke, and that I
would forbear to name any to her, praying her to think honourably of
the whole assembly, and to think that those who spoke and the rest
who were silent were of one mind, to hear her cause with all
impartiality. She added that the histories made mention that the
realm was used to blood. I answered that if she would peruse the
Chronicles of Scotland, France, Spain, and Italy, she would find that
this realm was far behind any other Christian nation in shedding of
blood, although the same was often very necessary where
dangerous offences arose. She was not willing to go further into this
matter, and indeed it was easy to see that she had no meaning in
this speech to reach her own cause, but spoke by way of
observation, after her usual manner. Thus you see that I am bold to
trouble you with trifles, as one willing to be blamed rather for lack of
good manners than for want of diligence.”

It would appear that on 11th November Walsingham received an
anonymous letter, evidently from a Catholic writer, informing him
that Elizabeth dared not put the Queen of Scots to death for fear of
the consequences. This threat, however, was not followed by any
movement to support it. The indifference of the Scottish people to
the persecution and imprisonment of their Sovereign cannot be
explained unless their loyalty to James VI., her son, stood in the
way, and they could not face a rebellion.

CHAPTER IV
Elizabeth's instructions to Lord Buckhurst to communicate the sentence of death to
Mary, and her remarkable reasons for this act—Elizabeth compromised in the
Babington Conspiracy—Her letter to Paulet to allow the commissioners an
interview with Mary—Elizabeth's chicanery (Petit's version)—Paulet to
Walsingham, 21st November 1586—Letter Henry III. to his Ambassador in
London to request James to save his mother's life—Sentence of death
communicated to Mary by Buckhurst—Queen Mary's pathetic letter to the Pope
informing him that she has been sentenced to die, and giving her last
instructions—Her letter to the Duke of Guise informing him of her sentence,
and giving instructions about her affairs.
Having in the previous chapter touched on the various points which
occupied the attention of Queen Mary's enemies during the past four
months, we now arrive at a critical period, the month of November.
The situation was gradually becoming more serious and more acute,
indicating that the mind of Elizabeth was not only fixed on the
Scottish Queen during the day but during the night. The subject, in
short, engrossed her whole attention. On 16th November 1586 she
formulated her final instructions to Lord Buckhurst regarding the
sentence of death which in her former letter she had ordered her
ministers to find and pronounce. In this document, which we give in
full, much is false and conjectural, much of it grotesque, while none
of it is sincere or truthful. It would not occur to the Queen of
England that these interpolations on Queen Mary's letters would ever
be discovered:—
“Instructions given by Elizabeth to Lord Buckhurst and Robert
Beale to declare to the Queen of Scots the sentence passed against
her and the demand for her execution:

“After you have informed yourselves particularly as well of the
treatise offered and other things needful which have passed
between us and the Scottish Queen; of the manifold favours we
have from time to time shown to her, both before and since her
arrival within our realm, requited by her great ingratitude toward us,
of which our pleasure is you shall receive some special note and
remembrance from our principal secretary Walsingham, as also of
the whole course of our proceedings with her in trial of the late
unnatural and wicked conspiracy against our life and Crown, whereof
she is found by a just and honourable sentence of our nobility to
have been not only privy and consenting, but also a compasser and
contriver to the inevitable danger of our life and state. God of his
great mercy towards us and our poor people most happily and
miraculously discovered and prevented the same. Our pleasure is
that you shall immediately repair to Fotheringay, where the said
Queen now remains in charge of Sir Amias Paulet, and after you
have delivered our letter to him and imparted our instructions and
other directions, you shall go together to the Scottish Queen, to
whom you shall signify the cause of our sending you to her, namely,
to let her understand how the lords and our commissioners lately
sent to Fotheringay have proceeded from their return from her. You
shall particularly explain the causes which moved them to postpone
the pronouncing of their sentence, their several meetings after their
return at our Star Chamber to examine and perfect their
proceedings, so that no just exception might be taken against the
same; the producing before them of Nau and Curle; their free,
voluntary, and public maintaining and confirming in their presence,
without either hope of reward or fear of punishment, of all those
things which they had before testified both by word, subscription,
and oath, against her; and finally, the sentence given by the
universal consent of all the lords and other commissioners, that she
was not only privy to the late most horrible and wicked conspiracy
against our person, but a contriver and compasser thereof according
to the words of the sentence, which to this effect our pleasure is
shall be delivered to you. And also how the Parliament of this realm
now assembled, having been informed of our honourable and just

proceedings by our commission, directed to the lords and others
appointed for the examination and trial thereof, and made
acquainted with the particulars of those things with which they
found her charged, together with the testimonies and proofs
produced against her, and her own answers to the same. Finding,
after deliberate consideration, that the sentence pronounced by the
commissioners was most just, lawful, and honourable, have not only
with full consent and without scruple or contradiction affirmed and
approved the same, but also by sundry deputies selected from both
Houses of the Lords and Commons and addressed to us in the name
of the realm, offered and presented their humble and earnest
petitions to us, both written and oral, tending to the moving and
persuading of us by their strong and invincible arguments to proceed
to the finishing of the sentence by the execution of her whom they
find to be the seed plot, chief and motive and author of all these
conspiracies which these many years past have been hatched,
intended, and attempted against our person, Crown, and State, and
do yet still threaten the same. If we should not apply that remedy
which in honour, justice, and necessity appertaineth, we should be
guilty and inexcusable before God and the whole world of all the
miseries and calamities that may ensue of our neglect or refusal to
agree to their humble petition, so greatly affecting the safety of our
person and preservation of the State, of religion, and common weal
of our realm, none of which can in their opinion be otherwise
sufficiently provided for and assured against such outward dangers
than by a just execution of her by whom and for whom they have
been, and are still likely to be, devised, attempted, and followed out
against us. And for that we are pressed on all sides as well with
respect to honour, justice, surety, and necessity as the unfortunate
suit and petition of our Lords and Commons, who still protest that
they can find no other way of assurance for our person, religion, and
State than by proceeding against her according to justice. You shall
therefore let her understand that we know not how it shall please
God to incline and dispose our heart in this matter, but we have
thought meet in conscience that she should be forewarned thereof,
so that she may the better bethink herself of her former sins and

offences both to God and to us, and call on Him for grace to be truly
penitent and for her late unnatural and ungodly conspiracy against
our life. This crime is so much the greater and more odious in the
sight of God and man in that she hath suborned and encouraged
some of our own subjects to be the actors and doers of an act so
foul and horrible against their Sovereign and anointed prince her
own near kinswoman, and one that, however she may account
thereof in nature and duty for past benefits, ought to have received
a more charitable measure at her hands if either the fear of God or
common humanity had prevailed anything with her. And because she
should have no reason to think herself hardly dealt with in the
manner of our proceedings against her, you shall let her know how
much the respect of her degree, calling, and nearness in blood to
ourselves hath moved us to take the course we have done in
sending her a number of our chief and most ancient nobility to
examine and try her offence. We might have proceeded otherwise
by an ordinary course of law without these respects and ceremonies
if we had not preferred our own honour to any other particular
affection of malice or revenge against her, which you may truly say
is such as if the consequence of her offence reached no farther than
to ourselves as a private person. We protest before God we could
have been very well contented to have freely remitted and pardoned
the same, if we might hereafter have lived sufficiently cautioned and
assured against the like, a thing so much the more hopeless
however she might hereafter reform herself. The taking of our life
and subversion thereby of the present state of religion and
commonwealth is amongst her factors and instruments abroad and
at home now held and approved in their bloody divinity, as work
meritorious and lawful before God and man. And whereas in the
opening of these particulars she may happen, as in the late meeting
of our commissioners with her, to fall into some justification of her
former offers and demeanour towards us, removing the cause of all
these mischiefs from herself and imputing the same to the hard
treatment she may pretend to have received at our hands. We have
thought meet, in case she shall fall into any such argument, that you
remind her how much she is to blame to wrong us in honour with

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
testbankdeal.com

Starting Out With Java From Control Structures Through Data Structures 2nd Edition Gaddis Test Bank

More Related Content

Similar to Starting Out With Java From Control Structures Through Data Structures 2nd Edition Gaddis Test Bank (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Starting Out With Java From Control Structures Through Data Structures 2nd Edition Gaddis Test Bank