The object of each subsequent historian was to surpass the originator of the calumnies against Elizabeth.  In his sketch of her life in the ‘Dictionary of National Biography,’ Dr. Augustus Jessopp asserts that the Queen’s ships ’were notoriously and scandalously ill-furnished with stores and provisions for the sailors, and it is impossible to lay the blame on anyone but the Queen.’  He had previously remarked that the merchant vessels which came to the assistance of the men-of-war from London and the smaller ports ‘were as a rule far better furnished than the Queen’s ships,’ which were ‘without the barest necessaries.’  After these extracts one from Dr. S. R. Gardiner’s ‘Student’s History of England’ will appear moderate.  Here it is:  ’Elizabeth having with her usual economy kept the ships short of powder, they were forced to come back’ from the chase of the Armada.

The above allegations constitute a heavy indictment of the Queen.  No heavier could well be brought against any sovereign or government.  Probably the first thing that occurs to anyone who, knowing what Elizabeth’s position was, reads the tremendous charges made against her will be, that—­if they are true—­she must have been without a rival in stupidity as well as in turpitude.  There was no person in the world who had as much cause to desire the defeat of the Armada as she had.  If the Duke of Medina Sidonia’s expedition had been successful she would have lost both her throne and her life.  She herself and her father had shown that there could be a short way with Queens—­consort or regnant—­whom you had in your power, and whose existence might be inconvenient to you.  Yet, if we are to believe her accusers, she did her best to ensure her own dethronement and decapitation.  ’The country saved itself and its cause in spite of its Queen.’

How did this extraordinary view of Elizabeth’s conduct arise?  What had Froude to go upon when he came forward as her accuser?  These questions can be answered with ease.  Every Government that comes near going to war, or that has gone to war, is sure to incur one of two charges, made according to circumstances.  If the Government prepares for war and yet peace is preserved, it is accused of unpardonable extravagance in making preparations.  Whether it makes these on a sufficient scale or not, it is accused, if war does break out—­at least in the earlier period of the contest—­of not having done enough.  Political opponents and the ‘man in the street’ agree in charging the administration with panic profusion in one case, and with criminal niggardliness in the other.  Elizabeth hoped to preserve peace.  She had succeeded in keeping out of an ‘official’ war for a long time, and she had much justification for the belief that she could do so still longer.  ‘She could not be thoroughly persuaded,’ says Mr. David Hannay,[66] ’that it was hopeless to expect to avert the Spanish invasion by artful diplomacy.’  Whilst reasonable precautions were not neglected, she was determined that no one should be able to say with truth that she had needlessly thrown away money in a fright.  For the general naval policy of England at the time, Elizabeth, as both the nominal and the real head of the Government, is properly held responsible.  The event showed the perfect efficiency of that policy.