barbarous treatment; for some of them were butchered by the wild Irish, and the rest put to the sword by the Lord Deputy." _W. Camden, History of Queen Elizabeth._ ALSO IN: _S. R. Gardiner, Historical Biographies: Drake._ _E. S. Creasy, Fifteen Decisive Battles, chapter 10._ _C. Kingsley, Westward Ho! chapter 31._ _R. Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, &C. (E. Goldsmid's ed.), volume 7._ ENGLAND: A. D. 1596. Alliance with Henry IV. of France against Spain. See FRANCE: A. D. 1593--1598. ENGLAND: A. D. 1596. Dutch and English expedition against Cadiz. See SPAIN: A. D. 1596. ENGLAND: A. D. 1597. Abolition of the privileges of the Hanse merchants. See HANSA TOWNS. ENGLAND: A. D. 1600. The first charter to the East India Company. See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702. ENGLAND: A. D. 1601. The first Poor Law. See POOR LAWS, THE ENGLISH. ENGLAND: A. D. 1603. Accession of King James I. The Stuart family. On the death of Queen Elizabeth, in 1603, James VI. of Scotland became also the accepted king of England (under the title of James I.), by virtue of his descent from that daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII., Margaret Tudor, who married James IV. king of Scots. His grandfather was James V.; his mother was Marie Stuart, or Mary, Queen of Scots, born of her marriage with Lord Darnley. He was the ninth in the line of the Scottish dynasty of the Stuarts, or Stewarts, for an account of the origin of which see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370. He had been carefully alienated from the religion of his mother and reared in Protestantism, to make him an acceptable heir to the English throne. He came to it at a time when the autocratic spirit of the Tudors, making use of the peculiar circumstances of their time, had raised the royal power and prerogative to their most exalted pitch; and he united the two kingdoms of Scotland and England under one sovereignty. "The noble inheritance fell to a race who, comprehending not one of the conditions by which alone it was possible to be retained, profligately misused until they lost it utterly. The calamity was in no respect foreseen by the statesman, Cecil, to whose exertion it was mainly due that James was seated on the throne: yet in regard to it he cannot be held blameless. He was doubtless right in the course he took, in so far as he thereby satisfied a national desire, and brought under one crown two kingdoms that with advantage to either could not separately exist; but it remains a reproach to his name that he let slip the occasion of obtaining for the people some ascertained and settled guarantees which could not then have been refused, and which might have saved half a century of bloodshed. None such were proposed to James. He was