History of the United Netherlands from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Year's Truce, 1586b — John Shaqi
History of the United Netherlands from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Year's Truce, 1586bMotley, John Lothrop
History
History of the United Netherlands from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Year's Truce, 1586b
Motley, John Lothrop
Netherlands -- History -- Eighty Years' War, 1568-1648
daily made unto her, but that she meaneth not to proceed therein without
their good liking and privity, being persuaded that there can no peace be
made profitable or sure for her that shall not also stand with their
safety; and she doth acknowledge hers to be so linked with theirs as
nothing can fall out to their prejudice, but she must be partaker of
their harm."
This communication was dated on the 21st April, exactly three weeks after
the Queen's letter to Heneage, in which she had spoken of the "malicious
bruits" concerning the pretended peace-negotiations; and the Secretary
was now confirming, by her order, what she had then stated under her own
hand, that she would "do nothing that might concern them without their
own knowledge and good liking."
And surely nothing could be more reasonable. Even if the strict letter
of the August treaty between the Queen and the States did not provide
against any separate negotiations by the one party without the knowledge
of the other, there could be no doubt at all that its spirit absolutely
forbade the clandestine conclusion of a peace with Spain by England
alone, or by the Netherlands alone, and that such an arrangement would be
disingenuous, if not positively dishonourable.
Nevertheless it would almost seem that Elizabeth had been taking
advantage of the day when she was writing her letter to Heneage on the
1st of April. Never was painstaking envoy more elaborately trifled with.
On the 26th of the month--and only five days after the communication by
Walsingham just noticed--the Queen was furious that any admission should
have been made to the States of their right to participate with her in
peace-negotiations.
"We find that Sir Thomas Heneage," said she to Leicester, "hath gone
further--in assuring the States that we would make no peace without their
privity and assent--than he had commission; for that our direction was--
if our meaning had been well set down, and not mistaken by our Secretary
--that they should have been only let understand that in any treaty that
might pass between us and Spain, they might be well assured we would have
no less care of their safety than of our own." Secretary Walsingham was
not likely to mistake her Majesty's directions in this or any other
important affair of state. Moreover, it so happened that the Queen had,
in her own letter to Heneage, made the same statement which she now
chose to disavow. She had often a convenient way of making herself
misunderstood, when she thought it desirable to shift responsibility from
her own shoulders upon those of others; but upon this occasion she had
been sufficiently explicit. Nevertheless, a scape-goat was necessary,
and unhappy the subordinate who happened to be within her Majesty's reach
when a vicarious sacrifice was to be made. Sir Francis Walsingham was
not a man to be brow-beaten or hood-winked, but Heneage was doomed to
absorb a fearful amount of royal wrath.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account