He says:  ’Instead of strengthening her armaments to the utmost, and throwing herself upon her Parliament for aid, she clung to her moneybags, actually reduced her fleet, withheld ammunition and the more necessary stores, cut off the sailor’s food, did, in short, everything in her power to expose the country defenceless to the enemy.  The pursuit of the Armada was stopped by the failure of the ammunition, which, apparently, had the fighting continued longer, would have been fatal to the English fleet.’

The writer makes on this the rather mild comment that ’treason itself could scarcely have done worse.’  Why ‘scarcely’?  Surely the very blackest treason could not have done worse.  He goes on to ask:  ’How were the glorious seamen, whose memory will be for ever honoured by England and the world, rewarded after their victory?’

This is his answer:  ’Their wages were left unpaid, they were docked of their food, and served with poisonous drink, while for the sick and wounded no hospitals were provided.  More of them were killed by the Queen’s meanness than by the enemy.’

It is safe to challenge the students of history throughout the world to produce any parallel to conduct so infamous as that which has thus been imputed to an English queen.  If the charges are true, there is no limit to the horror and loathing with which we ought to regard Elizabeth.  Are they true?  That is the question.  I respectfully invite the attention of those who wish to know the truth and to retain their reverence for a great historical character, to the following examination of the accusations and of the foundations on which they rest.  It will not, I hope, be considered presumptuous if I say that—­in making this examination—­personal experience of life in the navy sufficiently extensive to embrace both the present day and the time before the introduction of the great modern changes in system and naval materiel will be of great help.  Many things which have appeared so extraordinary to landsmen that they could account for their occurrence only by assuming that this must have been due to extreme culpability or extreme folly will be quite familiar to naval officers whose experience of the service goes back forty years or more, and can be satisfactorily explained by them.

There is little reason to doubt that the above-mentioned charges against the great Queen are based exclusively on statements in Froude’s History.  It is remarkable how closely Froude has been followed by writers treating of Elizabeth and her reign.  He was known to have gone to original documents for the sources of his narrative; and it seems to have been taken for granted, not only that his fidelity was above suspicion—­an assumption with which I do not deal now—­but also that his interpretation of the meaning of those who wrote the papers consulted must be correct.  Motley, in his ‘History of the United Netherlands,’ published in 1860, had dwelt upon the shortness of ammunition and provisions in the Channel Fleet commanded by Lord Howard of Effingham; but he attributed this to bad management on the part of officials, and not to downright baseness on that of Elizabeth.