Arthur Basset], and little Honor, and thy little lad [Arthur, who died
in infancy], and Jack, and Frances--my darling sister!--and George, and
Kate, and Nan. I am assured of them, all. There be James and Mall,--
well, I am not so sure of them. Would God I were! He knoweth.
"But I do hope I shall see my mother. And, O Bess! I shall see him--my
blessed, beloved father--I _shall_ see him!
"And they'll be glad, child. They'll all be glad when they see poor
blundering old Philippa come stumbling in at the gate. I misdoubt if
they look for it. They'll be glad!
"Bess, I do hope thou wilt ne'er turn thy back upon God so many years as
I have done. And I had never turned to Him at last, if He had not
stooped and turned me.
"Tell Robin, with my blessing, to be a whole man for God. A whole man
and a true! He is too rash--and yet not bold [true] enough. He cares
too much what other folk think. (Thank God, I ne'er fell in that trap!
'Tis an ill one to find the way out.) Do thou keep him steadfast, Bess.
He'll ask some keeping. There's work afore thee yet, child; 'tis work
worthy an angel--to keep one man steadfast for God. Thou must walk
close to God thyself to do it. And after all, 'twill be none of thy
doing, but of His that wrought by thee.--
"And God bless the childre! I count there's the making of a true man in
little Arthur. Thou mayest oft-times tell what a child is like to be
when he is but four years old. God bless him, and make him another
Arthur! (Nay, I stay me not at Robin's father, as thou dost. Another
Arthur,--like that dear father of ours, whom we so loved! He is _the_
Arthur for me.) I can give the lad no better blessing.
"Wilt draw the curtain, Bess? I feel as though I might sleep. Bless
thee, dear heart, for all thy tender ministering. And if I wake not
again, but go to God in sleep,--farewell, and Christ be with thee!"
So she slept--and woke not again.
Three months after the death of Philippa Basset, came another death--
like hers, of an old woman full of years. The last of the Tudors passed
away from earth. Sir Robert Basset was free. To Stuart, or Seymour, or
Clifford, he "owed no subscription." King of England he would be _de
facto_, as _de jure_ he believed himself in his heart.
And but for two obstacles in his way, it might have been Robert Basset
who seated himself on the seat of England's Elizabeth. For England was
much exercised as to who had really the right to her vacant throne.
It was no longer a question of Salic law--a dispute whether a woman
could reign. That point, long undetermined, had been finally settled
fifty years before.
Nor was it any longer a doubtful matter concerning the old law of
non-representation,--to which through centuries the English clung
tenaciously,--the law which asserted that if a son of the sovereign
predeceased his father, leaving issue, that issue was barred from the
succession, because the link which bound them to the throne was lost.
This had been "the custom of England" for at least three hundred years.
But, originally altered by the mere will of Edward the Third, the change
had now been confirmed by inevitable necessity, for when the Wars of the
Roses closed, links were lost in _all_ directions, and the custom of
England could no longer be upheld.
The two obstacles in Robert Basset's way were the apathy of the
majority, and the strong contrary determination of the few who took an
interest in the question.
The long reign of Elizabeth, and her personal popularity, had combined
to produce that apathy. Those who even dimly remembered the Wars of the
Roses, and whose sympathies were fervid for White or Red, had been long
dead when Elizabeth was gathered to her fathers. And to the new
generation, White and Red were alike; the popular interest in the
question was dead and buried also.
But there was a little knot of men and women whose interest was alive,
and whose energies were awake. And all these sided with one candidate.
Sir Robert Cecil, the clever, wily son of the sagacious Burleigh,--Lord
Rich and his wife Penelope sister of the beheaded Earl of Essex,--Robert
Carey, a distant cousin of Queen Elizabeth through her mother,--his
sister, Lady Scrope, one of the Queen's suite--and a few more, were all
active in the interest of James the Sixth of Scotland, who was
undoubtedly the true heir, if that true heir were not Sir Robert Basset.
In their way, too, there was an obstacle. And they were all intent on
getting rid of it.
King Henry the Eighth had introduced into the complicated question of
the succession one further complication, which several of his
predecessors had tried to introduce in vain. The success of all, before
him, had been at best only temporary. It took a Tudor will to do the
deed, and it took an obsequious Tudor age to accept it.
This new element was the pure will of the sovereign. Richard the First
had willed his crown to a nephew shut out by the law of
non-representation, and the attempt had failed to change the order of
succession. Edward the Third had in his life demanded the consent of
his nobility to a scheme exactly similar on behalf of his grandson, and
his plan had taken effect for twenty-three years, mainly on account of
the fact that the dispossessed heir, a protesting party in the first
case, had been a consenting party in the second. But one great element
in the success of Henry the Fourth was the return of the succession to
the old and beloved order.
The principle on which Henry the Eighth had governed for nearly forty
years was his own despotic will. And it would appear that England liked
his strong hand upon the rein. He had little claim beyond his strong
hand and (so much as he had of) his "Right Divine." Having become
accustomed to obey this man's will for thirty-eight years, when that
will altered the order of succession after the deaths of his own
children, England placidly submitted to the prospective change.
His son, Edward the Sixth, followed his father's example, and again
tried to alter the succession by will. But he had inherited only a
portion of his father's prestige. The party which would have followed
him was just the party which was not likely to struggle for its rights.
The order set up by Henry the Eighth prevailed over the change made by
Edward the Sixth.
But when Elizabeth came to die, the prestige of Henry the Eighth had
faded, and it was to her personal decision that England looked for the
settlement of the long-vexed question. The little knot of persons who
wished to secure the King of Scots' accession, therefore, were intensely
anxious to obtain her assent to their project.
The Delphic oracle remained obstinately silent. Neither grave
representations of necessity, nor coaxing, could induce her to open her
lips upon the subject; and as no living creature had ever taken
Elizabeth off her guard, there was no hope in that direction. The old
woman remembered too well the winter day, forty-five years before, when
the time-serving courtiers left the dying sister at Westminster, to pay
court to the living sister at Hatfield; and with the mixture of weakness
and shrewdness which characterised her, she refused to run the risk of
its repetition by any choice of a successor from the candidates for the
throne.
There were five living persons who could set up a reasonable claim, of
whom four were descendants of Henry the Seventh. They were all a long
way from the starting-point.
The first was the King of Scotland, son of Mary Queen of Scots, daughter
of James the Fifth, son of Princess Margaret of England, eldest daughter
of Henry the Seventh.
The second was the Lady Arbella Stuart, the only child of Lord Charles
Stuart, son of Lady Margaret Douglas, daughter of the same Princess
Margaret.
The third was Edward Seymour, son of Lady Katherine Grey, daughter of
Lady Frances Brandon, eldest daughter of Princess Mary, youngest
daughter of Henry the Seventh.
The fourth was Lady Anne Stanley, eldest daughter of Ferdinand Earl of
Derby, son of Lady Margaret Clifford, only daughter of Lady Eleanor
Brandon, second daughter of the same Princess Mary.
And the fifth was Sir Robert Basset of Umberleigh, son of Sir Arthur
Basset, son of Lady Frances Plantagenet, eldest daughter of Arthur Lord
Lisle, son of Edward the Fourth.
Of these five, the one who would have inherited the Crown, under the
will of Henry the Eighth, was unquestionably Edward Seymour; and, Mary
and Elizabeth being both now dead, the reversion fell to him also under
that of Edward the Sixth. But, strange to say, he was not a formidable
opponent of James of Scotland. Queen Elizabeth had been so deeply
offended with his mother (Lady Katherine Grey, sister of the beheaded
Lady Jane) for making a love-match without her royal licence, that she
had immured both bride and bridegroom in the Tower for years. Perhaps
the prestige of Elizabeth's will remained potent, even after Elizabeth
was dead; perhaps Edward Seymour had no wish to occupy such a thorny
seat as the throne of England. Neither he nor Lady Anne Stanley set up
the faintest claim to the succession; though Seymour, at least, might
have done so with a decided show of justice, as the law of succession
then stood. By the two royal wills, King James of Scotland, and his
cousin, Lady Arbella Stuart, were entirely dispossessed; their claim had
to be made under the law as it had stood unaltered by the will of Henry
the Eighth.
But there was one prior question, which, had it been settled in the
affirmative, would have finally disposed of all these four claims at
once. If the contract between Edward the Fourth and Elizabeth Lucy were
to be regarded as a legal marriage, then there could be no doubt who was
the true heir. Better than any claim of Stuart or Tudor, of Seymour or
Stanley, was then that of the Devonshire knight, Sir Robert Basset. For
fifteen hundred years, a contract had been held as legal marriage. The
vast estates of the Plantagenets of Kent had passed to the Holands on
the validity of a contract no better, and perhaps worse, than that of
Elizabeth Lucy. [Note 2.] Why was this contract to be set aside?
Had England at large been less apathetic, or had the little knot of
agitators been less politic, a civil war might have been reasonably
anticipated. But the intriguers were determined that James of Scotland
should succeed; and James himself, aware of the flaw in his title, was
busily working with them to the same end. Cecil, Lady Rich, Lady
Scrope, and Carey, were all pledged to let him know the exact moment of
the Queen's, decease, that he might set out for England at once.
All was gloom and suspense in the chamber of Richmond Palace, where the
great Queen of England lay dying. Her ladies and courtiers urged her to
take more nourishment,--she refused. They urged her to go to bed,--she
refused. She would be a queen to her last breath. No failure of bodily
strength could chill or tame the lion heart of Elizabeth.
At last, very delicately, Cecil attempted to sound the dying Queen on
that subject of the succession, always hitherto forbidden. Her throat
was painful, and she spoke with difficulty: Cecil, as spokesman for her
Council, asked her to declare "whom she would have for King," offering
to name sundry persons, and requesting that. Her Majesty would hold up
her finger when he came to the name which satisfied her. To test the
vigour of her mind, he first named the King of France.
Elizabeth did not stir.
"The King's Majesty of Scotland?"
There was no sign still.
"My Lord Beauchamp?"--Edward Seymour, the heir according to the wills of
her father and brother.
Then the royal lioness was roused.
"I tell you," she said angrily, "I will have no rascal's son in my seat,
but a king's son."
There was no king's son among the candidates but one, and that was James
of Scotland.
Once more, when she was past speech, Elizabeth was asked if she wished
James to succeed her. She indicated her pleasure in a manner which some
modern writers have questioned, but which was well understood in her own
day. Lifting her clasped hands to her head, the dying Elizabeth made
them assume the form of a crown; and once more those around her knew
that she desired her successor to be a king.
Tradition says that as soon as Elizabeth was dead, Lady Scrope dropped a
sapphire ring from the window--a preconcerted signal--to her brother,
Robert Carey, who was waiting below. Carey states that he was told in a
more matter-of-fact way--by a sentinel, whom he had previously requested
to bring him the news.
That hour Carey set out: and except for one night's rest at Carlisle, he
spurred night and day till he stood before King James. There was a
sudden intimation--a hurried action taken--and the Stuarts were Kings of
England.
The claims of the Lady Arabella were disposed of by making her a
companion to the new Queen, until she had the presumption to marry, and,
of all people, to marry the heir under King Henry the Eighth's will.
This was too much. She was imprisoned for life, and she died in her
prison, simply because she was her father's daughter and her husband's
wife.
The claims of Lord Beauchamp and Lady Anne Stanley needed no disposal,
since they had both remained perfectly quiescent, and had put forth no
claim.
But Robert Basset was not so easily managed. James knew that he was
capable of making the throne a very uncomfortable seat. And Basset,
with his usual rashness, had on the Queen's death dashed into the arena
and boldly asserted his right as the heir of Edward the Fourth. The
only way to dispose of him was by making him realise that the crown was
beyond his grasp; and that if he persevered, he would find the scaffold
and the axe within it. This was accordingly done so effectually that
weak, impulsive Basset quailed before the storm, and fled to France to
save his own life. He survived the accession of James the First for
seventeen years at least [Note 3]; but no more was heard of his right to
the throne of England.
Forty years after the death of Elizabeth, the son of James of Scotland
was struggling for his crown, with half England against him. Five years
later, there was a scaffold set up at Whitehall, and the blood royal was
poured out. There were comparatively few who stood by King Charles to
the last. But there was one--who had headed charges at Marston Moor
"for God, and King, and Country"--who had bled under his banner at
Edgehill--who lived to welcome back his most unworthy son and successor,
and to see the monarchy re-established in the Stuart line. His name was
Arthur Basset. [He died January 7, 1672. See Prince's Worthies of
Devon.]
Ay, there had been "the making of a true man" in Colonel Arthur Basset.
The fit representative of that earlier Arthur, he had adopted in his
life the motto which, a hundred and fifty years before, the son of
Edward the Fourth had embroidered on his banner--"_Dieu l'a voulu_."
God had not written the name of Arthur Basset on the roll of the Kings
of England. And Arthur Basset bowed his noble head to the decree, and
fell back to the ranks like a hero--no king, but a true man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1. The date is fictitious. The Atherington register has been
vainly searched for the burial of Philippa Basset, and the Heanton
register is marked in the return "illegible."
Note 2. The evidence in the earlier case (of Joan Plantagenet) seems to
have rested entirely on the oaths of husband and wife; in the latter (of
Elizabeth Lucy) the contract was known to the entire family of the
bridegroom.
Note 3. Prince states that "in consequence of his pretensions to the
Crown, and of his extravagance," Sir Robert was obliged to sell Heanton
and Whitechapel, which last was the old seat of his family. If he did
sell Heanton, his son must have bought it back; for it was the family
residence in the year after Colonel Basset's death. Umberleigh had been
deserted for Heanton on account of the low, damp situation of the
former, and the thick trees which crowded round the house.
APPENDIX.
THE ARMADA.
The strength of the Spanish fleet is differently represented by various
writers, whose accounts disagree to the wide extent of--ships, from 128
to 176; men, from fourteen to twenty-nine thousand. I append the
tabulated statement given by Speed, which is neither the highest nor the
lowest, and is the carefully-prepared account of a generally accurate
compiler.
Vessels:--Galliasses and gallions, 72; ships and hulkes, 47; pinnases
and carviles, 11:--130.
Men:--Soldiers, 18,658; sailors, 8094; galley-slaves, 2088:--28,840.
Munition:--Great ordnance, 2843; bullets, 220,000; powder, 4200
quintals, each one hundredweight; lead for bullets, 1000 quintals,
ditto; matches, 1200 quintals; muskets and calivers, 7000; partizans and
halberts, 10,000; cannon and field pieces unnumbered.
Provision:--Bread, biscuit, and wine laid in for six months; bacon, 6500
quintals; cheese, 3000 quintals; fresh water, 12,000 pipes; flesh, rice,
beans, peas, oil, and vinegar, unestimated.
General items:--Torches, lanterns, lamps, canvas, hides, lead to stop
leaks, whips, and knives.
Army 32,000 strong, and cost 30,000 ducats every day; 124 noblemen on
board as volunteers.
_Speed's Chronicle_, page 885.
BASSET OF UMBERLEIGH.
I think the following account of the Basset family will be more
convenient for reference than a number of explanatory notes interspersed
throughout the narrative, and will also avoid frequent repetition.
Owing to further research, it will be found fuller and more accurate
than the corresponding notes in _Isoult Barry_ and _Robin Tremayne_.
Sir John Basset of Umberleigh, son of Sir John Basset and Joan Beaumont,
died January 31, 1528 (Inq. 20 Henry Eight 20). The "Heralds'
Visitations" appear to be mistaken in giving Sir John four wives. Jane
Beaumont, whom they call his second wife, was his mother: while
Elizabeth, the third wife, seems to be an imaginary person altogether.
He married:--
A. Anne, daughter of John Dennis of Oxleigh and Eleanor Giffard; widow
of Patrick Bellewe of Aldervescot; buried with husband in Atherington
Church, Devon.
B. Honor, daughter of Sir Thomas Grenville of Stow and Isabel Gilbert;
born about 1498, married about 1515, died probably about 1548. Buried
in Atherington Church. [The burial register of this church previous to
1570 has perished.] She married, secondly, Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount
Lisle, son of Edward the Fourth and Elizabeth Lucy.
Issue of Sir John Basset
(A) by Anne Dennis:--
1. A son, whose only memorial is on the sepulchral brass of his parents
at Atherington probably died young.
2. Anne, married Sir James Courtenay of Powderham. (Issue,--James, and
John.)
3. Margery, (Harl. Ms. 1149, folio 13, b.) married Edward Marrays of
Marrays, Cornwall. (Issue,--Margaret, married George Rolle, Lady
Lisle's solicitor.)
4. Jane, born about 1505; apparently died unmarried.
5. Thomasine, born about 1512, died unmarried, March 19, 1535--(Lisle
Papers, Three 1.)
(B) By Honor Grenville:--
6. Philippa, born about 1516; probably died unmarried.
7. Katherine, born about 1518; married, after 1542, Sir Henry Ashley of
Ashley and Wimborne Saint Giles (Shaftesbury family); date of death not
known. (Issue,--Henry, and Edward, who probably died young.--Harl. Ms.
888, folio 40, b.)
8. John, born October 26, 1519 (Inq. 20 Henry Eight 20); died Apr. 3,
1545 (Inq. 2 Philip and Mary, 10). Married Frances, eldest daughter of
Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle, by his first wife Elizabeth Grey;
married at Calais, February 17 to 22, 1538 (Lisle Papers, Eleven 40,
41); died about 1560. She married, secondly, Thomas Monke of
Potheridge, county Devon.
9. Anne, born about 1520; Maid of Honour from 1537 (Lisle Papers,
Eleven 110) to 1554 (Tallies Roll, 2-3 Philip and Mary); married,
probably between July 7 and October 27, 1555, Sir Walter Hungerford of
Farleigh Castle, son of the last Lord Hungerford of Heytesbury; died
childless, probably in 1558-9. (Hungerford family papers).
10. George, born about 1522, died in London, 1579. (Harl. Mss., 757,
folio 214; 760, folio 322.) Married Jaquit, daughter and heir of John
Coffyn of Portledge, county Devon. She married, secondly, Henry Jones.
11. Mary, born about 1525, married at Atherington, June 9, 1557
(Register), John Wollacombe of Combe, county Devon. (Issue,--John,
Thomas, and Honor.--Harl. Ms. 3288, folio 49.)
12. James, born 1527 (Foxe's Acts and Monuments, Pratt's Townsend's
ed., Six 231), proctor of Bishop Gardiner, 1543 to 1555; Gentleman of
Chamber to Queen Mary, about 1556-8; died November 1558; buried Black
Friars' Church, London. ("Machyn's Diary," page 179.) Married Mary,
daughter of William Roper and Margaret his wife, daughter of Sir Thomas
More.
Issue of John Basset and Frances Plantagenet:--
1. Honor, born at Calais, about May 10, 1539 (Lisle Papers, One 72;
Eleven 97; Twelve 85), probably died young.
2. Sir Arthur, born 1540 (Inq. 1 March--2 Philip and Mary, 10),
probably at Calais; died of gaol fever, caught at the Black Assize,
Exeter (Stow's "Chronicle," page 719), April 2, 1586 (Epitaph); buried
at Atherington, April 7 (Register). Married Eleanor, daughter of John
Chichester of Raleigh, county Devon, and Gertrude Courtenay of
Powderham; buried at Atherington, July 8, 1585 (Register).
Issue of Sir Arthur Basset and Eleanor Chichester:--
1. Sir Robert, born 1574 (Matriculation Books, Queen's College,
Oxford); living 1620 (Anderson's. "Royal Genealogies," page 745).
Claimed the Crown on death of Queen Elizabeth, as legal descendant of
Edward the Fourth. He married Elizabeth, daughter and coh. of Sir
William Periam, Judge of the King's Bench; married November 21, 1591
(Register of Saint Dunstan in the West, London); died 1633.
2. Anne, married after 1585 Sir John Chichester of Hall, county Devon;
died 1665; buried at Marwood. (Left issue.)
3. Margaret, under ten years old in 1585 (Will of Sir A. Basset).
4. Arthur, under fourteen years old in 1585 (Will of Sir A. Basset).
5. William, born 1583 (Matriculation Books, University College,
Oxford).
6. Francis, baptised at Atherington, May 8, 1584 (Register).
7. John, baptised at Atherington June 1, 1585 (Register).
Issue of Sir Robert Basset and Elizabeth Feriam:--
1. Arthur, baptised June 6, 1593 (Register of Saint Dunstan in the
West, London); buried February 3, 1595 (Register of Saint Bartholemew
the Less, London).
2. Anne, baptised October 16, 1594 (Register of Saint Bartholemew the
Less, London); married Jonathan Rashley of Fox (Harl. Mss. 1091, folio
122; 1538, folio 280).
3. Ellen, married George Yeo of Hushe (Harl. Mss. 1091, folio 122;
1538, folio 280).
4. Arthur, born at Heanton (Prince's "Worthies of Devon," page 113),
1598 (ibidem, Harl. Ms. 1080, folio 343, b.); Colonel in King Charles's
army; died January 7, 1672; buried at Heanton (Prince, page 116).
Married Anne, daughter of William Leigh of Burrow, county Devon.
5. Eleanor (Harl. Ms. 1091, folio 122).
6. Mary (Harl. Ms. 1091, folio 122).
7. William, born March 28, 1602-3 (Harl. Ms. 1080, folio 343, b.;
Matriculation Books, Exeter College, Oxford).
Issue of Colonel Basset and Anne:--
1. John, of Heanton, living [?] 1673. Married Susannah, daughter of
(unknown).
2. Arthur, entered at Oriel College, Oxford, 1652, (Matriculation
Books.)
3. Francis, entered at Oriel College, Oxford, 1652 (Matriculation
Books.)
Issue of John Basset and Susannah:--
1. John, born February 26, 1653 (Atherington Register).
2. Arthur, born 1656 (Matriculation Books, Exeter College, Oxford).
3. Francis, born April 13, 1657 (Atherington Register). Married
(unknown), daughter of (unknown).
Issue of Francis Basset and (unknown):--
John, born 1688 (Matriculation Books, Exeter College, Oxford).
The male line of the Basset family died out with Francis Basset,
Esquire, in 1802; but the family estates remain in the hands of the
descendants of his eldest sister Eustachia, who married (Unknown) Davie
of Orleigh, and her posterity bear the name of Davie-Bassett.
The Younger Branches of the Family:--
Issue of George Basset and Jaquit Coffyn:--
1. Mary, baptised December 11, 1558 (Atherington Register); probably
died young.
2. John, baptised February 8, 1559 (Atherington Register), probably
died young.
3. Katherine, baptised January 11, 1560 (Atherington Register).
4. Blanche (Harl. Ms. 1080, folio 344).