and the resentment of the King of Scots. These damning facts in the
character of Elizabeth are too well known to require to be dilated on;
they have eclipsed the few noble actions of her life, and remain
indelible spots on her reputation as a woman and a sovereign. But we
learn from this letter the humiliating effects made by her ministers
to appease her fury, and her implacable resolution to overwhelm the
unfortunate Davison with the effect of her assumed, or perhaps real
repentance. In his apology, that statesman informs us, that on the
Friday after Mary's execution, namely, on the 10th of February, arriving
at the court he learnt the manner in which the queen had expressed
herself relative to the event; but being advised to "_absent himself for
a day or two_," and being, moreover, extremely ill, he left the court,
and returned to London. Woolley's communication being dated on _Sunday_,
(the manuscript is so excessively badly written as to be almost
illegible,) shows that Elizabeth did not summon her council, and evince
her displeasure at their conduct, until Saturday, the 13th of February,
two days after she was informed of Mary's fate. Davison had been
attacked with a stroke of the palsy shortly before, and all he says of
his committal is, that he was not sent to the Tower until Tuesday the
14th, on account of his illness; though some days previous (probably on
Saturday the 10th) the queen assembled her council.

This letter also exhibits a specimen of Leicester's characteristic
meanness; for notwithstanding that he was a party to the act of
forwarding the warrant for Mary's death, as his name occurs among those
of the council who signed the letters to the Earl of Shrewsbury, the earl
marshal, and to the Earl of Kent, both of which were dated on the 3rd of
February, 1586-7, commanding them to cause it to be put into execution,
he took care to withdraw from court before Elizabeth performed the roll,
which has so justly excited the scorn of posterity. It may be also