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 Ba.s.set of Umberleigh, son of Sir Arthur Ba.s.set, 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 th.o.r.n.y 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 Ba.s.set. For fifteen hundred years, a contract had been held as legal marriage. The vast estates of the Plantagenets of Kent had pa.s.sed 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 antic.i.p.ated. But the intriguers were determined that James of Scotland should succeed; and James himself, aware of the flaw in his t.i.tle, 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. .h.i.therto 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 a.s.sume 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 Ba.s.set was not so easily managed. James knew that he was capable of making the throne a very uncomfortable seat. And Ba.s.set, with his usual rashness, had on the Queen's death dashed into the arena and boldly a.s.serted 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 Ba.s.set 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 G.o.d, 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 Ba.s.set. [He died January 7, 1672. See Prince's Worthies of Devon.]

Ay, there had been "the making of a true man" in Colonel Arthur Ba.s.set.

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_."

G.o.d had not written the name of Arthur Ba.s.set on the roll of the Kings of England. And Arthur Ba.s.set bowed his n.o.ble head to the decree, and fell back to the ranks like a hero--no king, but a true man.

Note 1. The date is fict.i.tious. The Atherington register has been vainly searched for the burial of Philippa Ba.s.set, 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 Ba.s.set'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:--Gallia.s.ses 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 n.o.blemen on board as volunteers.

_Speed's Chronicle_, page 885.

Ba.s.sET OF UMBERLEIGH.

I think the following account of the Ba.s.set family will be more convenient for reference than a number of explanatory notes interspersed throughout the narrative, and will also avoid frequent repet.i.tion.

Owing to further research, it will be found fuller and more accurate than the corresponding notes in _Isoult Barry_ and _Robin Tremayne_.

Sir John Ba.s.set of Umberleigh, son of Sir John Ba.s.set 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.