Visit https://ebookultra.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks or textbooks

Infrastructure Robotics Methodologies Robotic

Systems and Applications 1st Edition Dikai
Liu(Edt)

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookultra.com/download/infrastructure-robotics-
methodologies-robotic-systems-and-applications-1st-edition-
dikai-liuedt/

Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks at ebookultra.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Systems Evaluation Methods Models and Applications 1st

Edition Sifeng Liu (Author)

https://ebookultra.com/download/systems-evaluation-methods-models-and-
applications-1st-edition-sifeng-liu-author/

Enterprise Information Systems Concepts Methodologies

Tools and Applications 1st Edition Information Resources
Management
https://ebookultra.com/download/enterprise-information-systems-
concepts-methodologies-tools-and-applications-1st-edition-information-
resources-management/

Haptics for teleoperated surgical robotic systems 1st

Edition M. Tavakoli

https://ebookultra.com/download/haptics-for-teleoperated-surgical-
robotic-systems-1st-edition-m-tavakoli/

Distributed Computing Principles and Applications M.L. Liu

https://ebookultra.com/download/distributed-computing-principles-and-
applications-m-l-liu/
Fuzzy Intelligent Systems Methodologies Techniques and
Applications Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing
for Industrial Transformation 1st Edition R. Anandan
https://ebookultra.com/download/fuzzy-intelligent-systems-
methodologies-techniques-and-applications-artificial-intelligence-and-
soft-computing-for-industrial-transformation-1st-edition-r-anandan/

Human Resources Management Set Concepts Methodologies

Tools and Applications Human Resources Management Concepts
Methodologies Tools and Applications 1st Edition
Information Resources Management Association
https://ebookultra.com/download/human-resources-management-set-
concepts-methodologies-tools-and-applications-human-resources-
management-concepts-methodologies-tools-and-applications-1st-edition-
information-resources-management-assoc/

Intelligent Music Information Systems Tools and

Methodologies 1st Edition Jialie Shen

https://ebookultra.com/download/intelligent-music-information-systems-
tools-and-methodologies-1st-edition-jialie-shen/

Software Applications Concepts Methodologies Tools and

Applications Premier Refence Source 1st Edition Pierre F.
Tiako
https://ebookultra.com/download/software-applications-concepts-
methodologies-tools-and-applications-premier-refence-source-1st-
edition-pierre-f-tiako/

Theory of Science and Technology Transfer and Applications

1st Edition Sifeng Liu

https://ebookultra.com/download/theory-of-science-and-technology-
transfer-and-applications-1st-edition-sifeng-liu/
Infrastructure Robotics Methodologies Robotic Systems
and Applications 1st Edition Dikai Liu(Edt) Digital
Instant Download
Author(s): Dikai Liu(edt), Carlos Balaguer(edt), Gamini Dissanayake(edt),
Mirko Kovac(edt)
ISBN(s): 9781394162840, 1394162847
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 13.92 MB
Year: 2023
Language: english
Infrastructure Robotics
 IEEE Press
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08854

IEEE Press Editorial Board

Sarah Spurgeon, Editor in Chief

Jón Atli Benediktsson Behzad Razavi Jeffrey Reed

Anjan Bose Jim Lyke Diomidis Spinellis
James Duncan Hai Li Adam Drobot
Amin Moeness Brian Johnson Tom Robertazzi
Desineni Subbaram Naidu Ahmet Murat Tekalp
Infrastructure Robotics

Methodologies, Robotic Systems and Applications

Edited by
Dikai Liu
University of Technology Sydney
Sydney, Australia

Carlos Balaguer
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Spain

Gamini Dissanayake
University of Technology Sydney
Sydney, Australia

Mirko Kovac
Imperial College London
London, UK

IEEE Press Series on Systems Science and Engineering

MengChu Zhou, Series Editor
Copyright © 2024 by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as
permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior
written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee
to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax
(978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should
be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ
07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.

Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written
permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts
in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or
completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales
representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be
suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Further, readers
should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this
work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of
profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental,
consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our
Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at
(317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print
may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web
site at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Liu, Dikai, editor.

Title: Infrastructure robotics : methodologies, robotic systems and
applications / edited by Dikai Liu [and three others].
Description: Hoboken, New Jersey : Wiley, [2024] | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2023041014 (print) | LCCN 2023041015 (ebook) | ISBN
9781394162840 (hardback) | ISBN 9781394162857 (adobe pdf) | ISBN
9781394162864 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Robotics. | Infrastructure (Economics)
Classification: LCC TJ211 .I48144 2024 (print) | LCC TJ211 (ebook) | DDC
629.8/92–dc23/eng/20231101
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023041014
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023041015

Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Images: Courtesy of Dikai Liu; Courtesy of Prof. Mirko Kovac, Laboratory of Sustainability
Robotics, Empa & Aerial Robotics Laboratory, Imperial College London. Video taken by
Schwarzpictures.com; Carlos Balaguer

Set in 9.5/12.5pt STIXTwoText by Straive, Chennai, India

 v

Contents

About the Editors xv

Preface xix
Acronyms xxi

Part I Methodologies 1

1 Infrastructure Robotics: An Introduction 3

Dikai Liu and Gamini Dissanayake
1.1 Infrastructure Inspection and Maintenance 3
1.2 Infrastructure Robotics 6
1.2.1 Inspection and Maintenance of Steel Bridges 7
1.2.2 Climbing and Wheeled Robots for Inspection of Truss Structures 8
1.2.3 Robots for Underwater Infrastructure Maintenance 10
1.3 Considerations in Infrastructure Robotics Research 11
1.4 Opportunities and Challenges 13
1.5 Concluding Remarks 15
Bibliography 15

2 Design of Infrastructure Robotic Systems 19

Kenneth Waldron
2.1 Special Features of Infrastructure 19
2.2 The Design Process 20
2.3 Types of Robots and Their Design and Operation 21
2.4 Software System Design 23
2.5 An Example: Development of the CROC Design Concept 23
2.6 Some Other Examples 27
2.7 Actuator Systems 30
vi Contents

2.8 Concluding Remarks 31

Bibliography 31

3 Perception in Complex and Unstructured Infrastructure

Environments 33
Shoudong Huang, Kai Pan, and Gamini Dissanayake
3.1 Introduction 33
3.2 Sensor Description 35
3.2.1 2D LiDAR 35
3.2.2 3D LiDAR 35
3.2.3 Sonar 36
3.2.4 Monocular Camera 36
3.2.5 Stereo Camera 36
3.2.6 GRB-D Camera 37
3.3 Problem Description 37
3.4 Theoretical Foundations 38
3.4.1 Extended Kalman Filter 39
3.4.2 Nonlinear Least Squares 40
3.4.3 Environment Representations 42
3.4.4 Mapping Techniques 44
3.4.5 Localization Techniques 47
3.4.6 SLAM Techniques 49
3.5 Implementation 53
3.5.1 Localization 54
3.5.2 SLAM 54
3.6 Case Studies 55
3.6.1 Mapping in Confined Space 55
3.6.2 Localization in Confined Space 55
3.6.3 SLAM in Underwater Bridge Environment 56
3.7 Conclusion and Discussion 56
Bibliography 57

4 Machine Learning and Computer Vision Applications in Civil

Infrastructure Inspection and Monitoring 59
Shuming Liang, Andy Guo, Bin Liang, Zhidong Li, Yu Ding, Yang Wang,
and Fang Chen
4.1 Introduction 59
4.2 GNN-Based Pipe Failure Prediction 60
4.2.1 Background 60
4.2.2 Problem Formulation 61
4.2.3 Data Preprocessing 61
 Contents vii

4.2.4 GNN Learning 62

4.2.5 Failure Pattern Learning 64
4.2.6 Failure Predictor 65
4.2.7 Experimental Study 65
4.3 Computer Vision-Based Signal Aspect Transition Detection 67
4.3.1 Background 67
4.3.2 Signal Detection Model 67
4.3.3 Track Detection Model 69
4.3.4 Optimization for Target Locating 72
4.4 Conclusion and Discussion 75
Bibliography 77

5 Coverage Planning and Motion Planning of Intelligent

Robots for Civil Infrastructure Maintenance 81
Mahdi Hassan and Dikai Liu
5.1 Introduction to Coverage and Motion Planning 81
5.2 Coverage Planning Algorithms for a Single Robot 82
5.2.1 An Offline Coverage Planning Algorithm 82
5.2.2 A Real-Time Coverage Planning Algorithm 86
5.3 Coverage Planning Algorithms for Multiple Robots 90
5.3.1 Base Placement Optimization 90
5.3.2 Area Partitioning and Allocation 93
5.3.3 Adaptive Coverage Path Planning 97
5.4 Conclusion 101
Bibliography 102

6 Methodologies in Physical Human–Robot Collaboration for

Infrastructure Maintenance 105
Marc G. Carmichael, Antony Tran, Stefano Aldini, and Dikai Liu
6.1 Introduction 105
6.2 Autonomy, Tele-Operation, and pHRC 106
6.2.1 Autonomous Robots 106
6.2.2 Teleoperated Robots 108
6.2.3 Physical Human–Robot Collaboration 109
6.3 Control Methods 110
6.3.1 Motion Control 110
6.3.2 Force Control 111
6.4 Adaptive Assistance Paradigms 113
6.4.1 Manually Adapted Assistance 114
6.4.2 Assistance-As-Needed Paradigms 115
6.4.3 Performance-Based Assistance 115
viii Contents

6.4.4 Physiology-Based Assistance 116

6.5 Safety Framework for pHRC 117
6.6 Performance-Based Role Change 119
6.7 Case Study 121
6.8 Discussion 122
Acknowledgements 123
Bibliography 123

Part II Robotic System Design and Applications 127

7 Steel Bridge Climbing Robot Design and Development 129

Hung M. La
7.1 Introduction 129
7.2 Recent Climbing Robot Platforms Developed by the ARA Lab 133
7.3 Overall Design 134
7.3.1 Mechanical Design and Analysis 136
7.4 Overall Control Architecture 140
7.4.1 Control System Framework 141
7.5 Experiment Results 148
7.5.1 Switching Control 149
7.5.2 Robot Navigation in Mobile and Worming Transformation 152
7.5.3 Robot Deployment 153
7.6 Conclusion and Future Work 155
Bibliography 156

8 Underwater Robots for Cleaning and Inspection of

Underwater Structures 161
Andrew Wing Keung To, Khoa Le, and Dikai Liu
8.1 Introduction to Maintenance of Underwater Structures 161
8.2 Robot System Design 163
8.2.1 Hull Design and Maneuvering System 164
8.2.2 Robot Arms for Docking and Water-Jet Cleaning 164
8.3 Sensing and Perception in Underwater Environments 166
8.3.1 Underwater Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) Around
Bridge Piles 167
8.3.2 Marine Growth Identification 168
8.4 Software Architecture 170
8.5 Robot Navigation, Motion Planning and System Integration 170
8.5.1 Localization and Navigation in Open Water 170
 Contents ix

8.5.2 System Integration 173

8.6 Testing in a Lab Setup and Trials in the Field 174
8.6.1 Operation Procedure 174
8.6.2 Autonomous Navigation in Narrow Environments 176
8.6.3 Vision-Based Marine Growth Removing Process 178
8.6.4 Inspection and Marine Growth Identification 179
8.7 Reflection and Lessons Learned 180
8.8 Conclusion and Future Work 181
Acknowledgments 182
Bibliography 182

9 Tunnel Structural Inspection and Assessment Using an

Autonomous Robotic System 185
Juan G. Victores, E. Menendez, and C. Balaguer
9.1 Introduction 185
9.2 ROBO-SPECT Project 186
9.2.1 Robotic System 187
9.2.2 Intelligent Global Controller 191
9.2.3 Ground Control Station 192
9.2.4 Structural Assessment Tool 192
9.3 Inspection Procedure 192
9.4 Extended Kalman Filter for Mobile Vehicle Localization 195
9.5 Mobile Vehicle Navigation 197
9.6 Field Experimental Results 198
9.7 Conclusion 201
Bibliography 201

10 BADGER: Intelligent Robotic System for Underground

Construction 205
Santiago Martínez, Marcos Marín, Elisabeth Menéndez,
Panagiotis Vartholomeos, Dimitrios Giakoumis, Alessandro Simi, and
Carlos Balaguer
10.1 Introduction 205
10.2 Boring Systems and Methods 207
10.2.1 Directional Drilling Methods 207
10.2.2 Drilling Robotic Systems 209
10.3 Main Drawbacks 210
10.4 BADGER System and Components 212
10.4.1 Main Systems Description 212
10.4.2 BADGER Operation 215
x Contents

10.5 Future Trends 218

Bibliography 218

11 Robots for Underground Pipe Condition Assessment 221

Jaime Valls Miro
11.1 Introduction to Ferro-Magnetic Pipeline Maintenance 221
11.1.1 NDT Inspection Taxonomy 222
11.2 Inspection Robots 223
11.2.1 Robot Kinematics and Locomotion 224
11.3 PEC Sensing for Ferromagnetic Wall Thickness Mapping 228
11.3.1 Hardware and Software System Architecture 230
11.4 Gaussian Processes for Spatial Regression from Sampled Inspection
Data 232
11.4.1 Gaussian Processes 234
11.5 Field Robotic CA Inspection Results 236
11.6 Concluding Remarks 240
Bibliography 240

12 Robotics and Sensing for Condition Assessment of

Wastewater Pipes 243
Sarath Kodagoda, Vinoth Kumar Viswanathan, Karthick Thiyagarajan,
Antony Tran, Sathira Wickramanayake, Steve Barclay, and
Dammika Vitanage
12.1 Introduction 243
12.2 Nondestructive Sensing System for Condition Assessment of Sewer
Walls 245
12.3 Robotic Tool for Field Deployment 252
12.4 Laboratory Evaluation 254
12.5 Field Deployment and Evaluation 255
12.6 Lessons Learned and Future Directions 258
12.7 Concluding Remarks 259
Bibliography 260

13 A Climbing Robot for Maintenance Operations in Confined

Spaces 263
Gibson Hu, Dinh Dang Khoa Le, and Dikai Liu
13.1 Introduction 263
13.2 Robot Design 265
13.3 Methodologies 271
13.3.1 Perception 271
13.3.2 Control 274
 Contents xi

13.3.3 Planning of Robot Body Motion 279

13.4 Experiments and Results 279
13.4.1 Experiment Setup 279
13.4.2 Lab Test Results 280
13.4.3 Field Trials in a Steel Bridge 282
13.5 Discussion 283
13.6 Conclusion 283
Bibliography 284

14 Multi-UAV Systems for Inspection of Industrial and Public

Infrastructures 285
Alvaro Caballero, Julio L. Paneque, Jose R. Martinez-de-Dios, Ivan Maza,
and Anibal Ollero
14.1 Introduction 285
14.2 Multi-UAV Inspection of Electrical Power Systems 287
14.2.1 Use Cases 287
14.2.2 Architecture 288
14.3 Inspection Planning 289
14.3.1 Vehicle Routing Problem 289
14.4 Onboard Online Semantic Mapping 296
14.4.1 GNSS-Endowed Mapping System 296
14.4.2 Reflectivity and Geometry-Based Semantic Classification 297
14.4.3 Validation 298
14.5 Conclusion 300
Bibliography 302

15 Robotic Platforms for Inspection of Oil Refineries 305

Mauricio Calva
15.1 Refining Oil for Fuels and Petrochemical Basics 305
15.2 The Inspection Process 307
15.3 Inspection and Mechanical Integrity of Oil Refinery
Components 310
15.3.1 Liquid Storage Tank Inspection 310
15.3.2 Pressurized Vessels Inspection 312
15.3.3 Process Pipping 314
15.3.4 Heat Exchanger Bundles 315
15.4 Plant Operations, Surveillance, Maintenance Activities, and
Others 316
15.4.1 Surveillance, Operations, and Maintenance of Oil and Gas
Refineries 316
15.4.2 Safety and Security 318
xii Contents

15.4.3 Utilities and Support Activities 318

15.5 Robotic Systems for Inspection 319
15.5.1 Robotics for Storage Tanks 320
15.5.2 Robotics for Pressure Vessels 324
15.5.3 Robotics for Process Piping 328
15.5.4 Robotics Heat Exchanger Bundles 331
15.6 Robotics for Plant Operations, Surveillance, Maintenance, and Other
Related Activities 332
15.6.1 Operations, Surveillance, and Maintenance of Oil and Gas Refineries
with Robotic Systems 332
15.6.2 Safety and Security Robotics 334
15.6.3 Robotics for Utilities and Support Activities 335
15.7 Conclusion 335

16 Drone-Based Solar Cell Inspection With Autonomous Deep

Learning 337
Zhounan Wang, Peter Zheng, Basaran Bahadir Kocer, and Mirko Kovac
16.1 Introduction 337
16.1.1 Motivation 337
16.1.2 Related Works 339
16.1.3 Scope 341
16.2 Aerial Robot and Detection Framework 341
16.2.1 Simulation Environment 343
16.2.2 Solar Panel Detection 343
16.2.3 Aerial Robot Trajectory 345
16.2.4 Sensory Instrumentation for Aerial Robot 346
16.3 Learning Framework 348
16.3.1 Dataset Preparation 349
16.3.2 CNN Architecture 351
16.3.3 Performance Evaluation Measures 352
16.4 Conclusion 357
Acknowledgments 358
Bibliography 358

17 Aerial Repair and Aerial Additive Manufacturing 367

Yusuf Furkan Kaya, Lachlan Orr, Basaran Bahadir Kocer, and Mirko Kovac
17.1 Review of State of the Art in Additive Manufacturing at Architectural
Scales 367
17.2 Review of Demonstrations of Aerial Manufacturing and Repair 371
17.2.1 Demands and Challenges 374
 Contents xiii

17.2.2 Future Prospects 376

17.3 Initial Experimental Evaluations 378
17.4 Conclusion and Discussion 379
Bibliography 379

Index 385
 xv

About the Editors

Dikai Liu received his BEng, MEng, and PhD degrees from the Wuhan University
of Technology in 1986, 1991, and 1997, respectively. He currently holds the posi-
tion of distinguished professor at the Robotics Institute of the University of
Technology Sydney (UTS), Australia. His primary research interests lie in the
field of intelligent robotics, with a specific focus on perception, human–robot
collaboration, brain–robot interface, human–robot teaming, robot systems, and
design methodology. Besides conducting fundamental robotics research, he
has successfully translated his research into practical applications, including
infrastructure maintenance, construction automation, manufacturing, and
health/aged care. Prof. Liu has led the development of over 10 intelligent robotic
systems designed for real-world applications. Examples include autonomous
robots for steel bridge maintenance, bio-inspired climbing robots for inspec-
tion in confined spaces in steel structures, intelligent robotic co-workers for
human–robot collaborative abrasive blasting, smart hoists for patient transfer,
and autonomous underwater robots for underwater structure maintenance. Since
2006, his research has received numerous awards, including the 2019 UTS Medal
for Research Impact, the 2019 ASME DED Leonardo da Vinci Award, the 2019
BHERT Award for Outstanding Collaboration in Research and Development, and
the 2016 Australian Engineering Excellence Awards.

Carlos Balaguer received the BSc, MSc, and PhD degrees from Polytechnic
University of Madrid in 1977, 1981, and 1983, respectively. Since 1996, he has
been a Full Professor at University Carlos III of Madrid where he is the coordina-
tor of the RoboticsLab, a research group in the field of intelligent robots. His main
research topics are intelligent robots design and control, humanoid robots, health-
care and assistive robotics, soft robotics, manipulation, and locomotion planning.
He was a member of the Board of Directors of the euRobotics (2015–2021), an
association of European robotics with more than 300 affiliated organizations.
He was also the President of the International Association for Automation and
xvi About the Editors

Robotics in Construction (IAARC) for the period 2001–2004. He participated in

29 competitive European Union projects and being the coordinator of several
of them. He organized numerous important scientific events; among them, he
was the General Chair of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems (IROS’2018), the biggest worldwide scientific conference in
the field of Intelligent Robotics with about 5000 attendants. He received several
awards, among them for the best book in Robotics by McGraw-Hill (1988); the
best paper of the ISARC’2003 in Eindhoven (The Netherlands); IMSERSO’s
Award 2004 for assistive robots’ research; the Industrial Robot journal Innovation
Award of the CLAWAR’2005 in London (UK); Tucker-Hasegawa Award 2006 in
Tokyo (Japan) for a major contribution in the field of Robotics and Automation in
Construction; and FUE’s Award 2014 for AIRBUS-UC3M Joint R&D Center.

Gamini Dissanayake is an emeritus professor at the University of Technology

Sydney (UTS). He was the James N Kirby Distinguished Professor of Mechanical
and Mechatronic Engineering at UTS until his retirement in 2020. He graduated in
Mechanical/Production Engineering from the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
He received his MSc in Machine Tool Technology and PhD in Mechanical Engi-
neering (Robotics) from the University of Birmingham, England. He taught at Uni-
versity of Peradeniya, National University of Singapore, and University of Sydney
before joining UTS in 2002. At UTS, he founded the UTS Centre for Autonomous
Systems that grew to a team of 75 staff and students working in Robotics by 2020.
His main contribution to robotics has been in Simultaneous Localization and Map-
ping (SLAM), which resulted in the most cited journal publication in robotics in
the past 20 years. SLAM is the robotic equivalent of a human finding their way
around in a city without GPS and maps, thus underpins many robot applications
ranging from household vacuum cleaning robots to self-driving cars. He has also
been involved in developing robots for a range of industry applications includ-
ing cargo handling, disaster response, mining, infrastructure maintenance, and
aged care.

Mirko Kovac received his BSc and MSc degrees in Mechanical Engineering from
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ) in 2005. He obtained
his PhD at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) in 2010
and pursued a Postdoc at Harvard University until 2012. He is now director of
the Aerial Robotics Laboratory and full Professor at Imperial College London.
He is also heading the Laboratory of Sustainability Robotics at the Swiss Fed-
eral Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa) in Dübendorf in
Switzerland. His research group focuses on the development of novel, aerial robots
for distributed sensing and autonomous manufacturing in complex natural and
 About the Editors xvii

man-made environments. Prof. Kovac’s specialization is in robot design, hardware

development, and multimodal robot mobility. He has received numerous awards,
including the ICE Howard Medal in 2021, as well as several fellowships, including
the ERC Consolidator Grant in 2022 and the Royal Society Wolfson Fellowship in
2018.
Other documents randomly have
different content
France. Father Howard himself told Mendoza that he was at a loss
to account for this leniency.
[495] He certainly was not benefited in purse; for one of the
first things Parry did was to borrow fifty crowns of the young
man, which he never returned (Birch’s Elizabeth). In the
correspondence of Sir Thomas Copley with Burghley at this period
(1579-80), Parry is presented in a more favourable light than that
in which he is usually regarded, and so far as can be judged by
his letters he retained the Lord Treasurer’s esteem almost to the
time of his arrest.
[496] Mendoza, writing to Philip from Paris at the time, says
that this letter was forged (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth), but
in any case the letter did not necessarily imply approval of
murder.
[497] Hatfield Papers, part iii.
[498] Harl. MSS., 4651.
[499] Hatfield Papers, part iii.
[500] See letter (Nau?) to Mary (Hatfield Papers, part iii. p.
125).
[501] See letter from Burghley’s nephew Hoby, at Berwick, to
the Treasurer (Hatfield Papers, part iii. p. 71).
[502] Hatfield State Papers, part iii.
[503] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, part iii. p. 536; and
Hatfield Papers, part iii. p. 99.
[504] Carliell to Walsingham, 4th October 1585 (State Papers,
Domestic).
[505] Cotton, Galba, cviii. (Leycester Correspondence).
[506] Harl. MSS., 285 (Leycester Correspondence).
[507] Harl. MSS., 6993 (Leycester Correspondence).
[508] The unfortunate Davison, born apparently to be made a
scapegoat, had to bear Leicester’s reproaches for the Queen’s
anger, which the Earl said was owing to Davison’s ineffective or
insincere advocacy—Davison being a distant connection both of
Burghley’s and Leicester’s. The latter even had the meanness to
allege that it was mainly owing to Davison’s persuasion that he
accepted the sovereignty, and Davison was disgraced and
banished from court for a time in consequence. See Sir Philip
Sidney’s letters to Davison (Harl. MSS., 285).
[509] Cotton, Galba, cx. (Leycester Correspondence).
[510] Harl. MSS., 6994 (Edwards’ “Letters of Ralegh”).
[511] Amongst many other proofs may be mentioned her letter
to Charles Paget, 27th July 1586 (Hatfield Papers, part iii.), in
which she says: “Upon Ballard’s return the principal Catholics who
had despatched him oversea imparted to her their intentions;”
but she advises that “nothing is to be stirred on this side until
they have full assurance and promise from the Pope and Spain.”
In another letter of the same date to Mendoza she says that
although she had turned a deaf ear for six months to the various
overtures made to her by the Catholics, now that she had heard
of the intentions of the King of Spain, she had consented thereto
(Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, part iii.). Again, on the same
day, she instructed the French Ambassador to ask Burghley to be
careful in the choice of a new guardian for her, “so that whatever
happen, whether it be the death of the Queen of England, or a
rebellion in the country, my life may be safe” (Labanoff).
[512] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. iii. The reference to
Parma applies to certain negotiations for peace which had been
attempted by Andrea de Looe, Agostino Graffini, and William
Bodenham. In a statement furnished by an English agent to Philip
in November, it is also asserted that these negotiations were
initiated by Burghley “who was always against the war.”
[513] Mendoza wrote to Philip (8th November): “When Cecil
saw the papers (taken in Mary’s rooms) he told the Queen that
now that she had so great an advantage, if she did not proceed
with all rigour at once against the Queen of Scotland, he himself
would seek her friendship. These words are worthy of so clever a
man as he is, and were intended to lead the other Councillors to
follow him in holding the Queen of England back.” It is evident
from this that Mendoza did not consider Cecil to be Mary’s enemy.
[514] Babington, Savage, Ballard, Barnewell, Tylney,
Tichbourne, and Abingdon were executed at St. Giles-in-the-
Fields on the 20th September. Mendoza says that as Babington’s
heart was being torn out he was distinctly heard to pronounce the
word “Jesus” thrice.
[515] State Papers, Domestic.
 [516] Camden.
[517] Davison, who had just been appointed an additional
Secretary of State, wrote to Burghley from Windsor (5th October)
that the Queen did not like the wording, “Tam per Maria filiam et
hæredem Jacobi quinti nuper Scotorū Regis ac communiter
vocatam Scotorū Regis et dotare Franciæ.” She wished it to be,
“Tam per Maria filiam &c. … Scotorū Regis et dotare Franciæ
communiter vocata Regina Scotorū.” Thus it is seen that,
although Elizabeth made no difficulty about acknowledging Mary
as Queen Dowager of France, she would not recognise her as of
right Queen of Scots. Davison adds that she was sending a
special messenger to Burghley to discuss the matter with him.
[518] He was the secret means of communication between
Mendoza and his spies in England.
[519] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[520] Nau and Curll, the two Secretaries, had been closely
examined by Burghley in London, and at first had denied
everything, but subsequently when confronted with their own
handwriting, were obliged to acknowledge—especially Nau—
Mary’s cognisance of Babington’s plans. Nau afterwards (1605)
endeavoured to minimise his admissions, but Mary’s letter to
Mendoza (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, 23rd November) which
was not delivered or opened until long after Mary’s death, leaves
no doubt whatever that Mary considered he had betrayed her.
Curll lived for the rest of his life on a handsome pension from
Spain, but Nau got nothing. Mary’s first answer to her accusers,
that she was a free princess and not subject to Elizabeth’s
tribunal, had been foreseen by Beale (see his opinion, Harl. MSS.,
4646).
[521] Queen to Burghley, 12th October (Cotton, Caligula, cix.).
[522] Camden Annals, and Life of Sir Thomas Egerton.
[523] Hatfield Papers, part iii.
[524] Howell’s State Trials. Burghley writes to Davison (15th
October, Cotton, Caligula): “She has only denied the accusations.
Her intention was to move pity by long artificial speeches, to lay
all blame upon the Queen’s Majesty, or rather upon the Council,
that all the troubles past did ensue from them, avowing her
reasonable offers and our refusals. And in these speeches I did so
encounter her with reasons out of my knowledge and experience,
as she hath not the advantage she looked for. And, as I am
assured, the auditory did find her case not pitiable, and her
allegations untrue.”
[525] Hollingshead.
[526] Mary to Mendoza, 24th November (Spanish State Papers,
Elizabeth, part iii.).
[527] Paris Archives; in extenso in Von Raumer.
[528] Philip’s secret agent in London wrote at the time urging
that “a message should be sent from Spain to the Lord Treasurer,
who is the ruling spirit in all this business, and is desirous of
peace, to let him know that your Majesty wished for his
friendship” (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, part iii.).
[529] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, part iii.
[530] Bellièvre did not arrive in England until 1st December. An
account of his embassy will be found printed in Labanoff. The
regular Ambassador, Chateauneuf, did his best, for he was a
Guisan, but Elizabeth flatly told him she believed he was
exceeding his instructions. His own doubts as to his master’s real
wishes are expressed in a letter to D’Esneval in Paris (20th
October): “Je vous prie me mander privément, ou ouvertement,
l’intention de Sa Majesté sur les choses de deça; car il me semble
que l’on se soucie fort peu de par dela du fait de la Reine
d’Ecosse.” Davison wrote to Burghley at Fotheringay (8th
October), telling him of the “presumption” of Chateauneuf’s first
remonstrance, and the rebuke sent to him by the Queen “for
attempting to school her in her actions.”
[531] Mendoza to Philip, 7th December (Spanish State Papers,
Elizabeth, part iii.).
[532] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, part iii. In a marginal
note to another letter, Philip himself expresses an opinion that
Bellièvre has gone, not to save Mary’s life, but for another
purpose.
[533] See Lord Burghley’s notes of this appeal for his reply
thereto (Hatfield State Papers, part iii.); and also Elizabeth’s own
most interesting letter to Henry III. (Harl. MSS., 4647). She ends
by a hit at Henry’s helpless position: “I beg you, therefore, rather
to think of the means of preserving than of diminishing my
friendship. Your States, my good brother, cannot bear many
enemies; do not for God’s sake give the rein to wild horses, lest
they throw you from your seat.” Another characteristic step taken
in England at the same time was to concoct a bogus plot to
murder Elizabeth, in which it was pretended that the Ambassador
Chateauneuf was concerned. This gave an opportunity for much
anger and complaint on the part of Elizabeth, especially against
the Guises; and in Lord Burghley’s memoranda giving reasons for
Mary’s execution, this so-called plot of Stafford, Moody, and
Destrappes is gravely set forth as a contributing factor.
[534] Gray’s own feelings in the matter may be seen by his
copious correspondence with Archibald Douglas, at Hatfield. He
had, when he was in Flanders, proposed that Mary might be put
out of the way by poison, and was hated by Mary’s friends in
consequence. “If she die,” he said, “I shall be blamed, and if she
live I shall be ruined;” but he was forced against his will to accept
the embassy and acted in a similar way to Bellièvre—pleaded with
strong words but weak arguments, in order that his own position
might be saved whether Mary lived or died.
[535] Mendoza to Philip, 24th January 1587 (Spanish State
Papers, Elizabeth, vol. iv.).
[536] The matter is fully discussed in Nicolas’s Life of Davison.
[537] It is curious that the warning should come from Howard,
a Catholic and a Conservative, several of whose relatives were
Spanish pensioners.
[538] Hatfield Papers, part iii. There is no mention of the
poison letter to Paulet, but it was written, and is printed in
Nicolas’s Life of Davison, with Paulet’s reply.
[539] The Queen kept up a pretence of anger against the
Councillors for some time, and especially against Burghley, who
on the 13th February wrote her a submissive letter praying for
her favour. He was excluded from her presence, and complains
that she “doth utter more heavy, hard, bitter, and minatory
speeches against me than against any other,” which he ascribes
to the calumnies of his many enemies, and to the fact that he
alone was not allowed to justify his action personally to her. “I
have,” he says, “confusedly uttered my griefs, being glad that the
night of my age is so near by service and sickness as I shall not
long wake to see the miseries that I fear others shall see that are
like to overwatch me.” When at length he obtained audience of
the Queen, she treated him so harshly that he again retired, and
was only induced to return again by the intercession of Hatton.
Elizabeth’s special anger with Burghley may have been an
elaborate pretence agreed upon between them, or, what is more
probable, the result of some calumnies of Leicester.
[540] An interesting statement of Burghley’s treatment of
Davison in later years will be found in Harl. MSS., 290. Part of his
unrelenting attitude to him is commonly attributed to Burghley’s
desire to secure the Secretaryship of State for his son, Sir Robert
Cecil. It is evident, however, that Davison was adopted by Essex
as one of his instruments to oppose Burghley’s policy, and the
restoration of Davison would thereafter have meant a defeat for
the Cecils. This, it appears to me, amply explains the Lord
Treasurer’s attitude.
[541] Hatfield Papers, part iii. 223.
[542] That Lord Burghley was desirous of dissociating himself
personally from the execution, and of remaining on good terms
with the Catholic party, is further seen by a remark made in a
letter from Mendoza to Philip (26th March 1587): “Cecil, the Lord
Treasurer, said publicly that he was opposed to the execution, and
on this and all other points feeling was running very high in the
Council; Cecil and Leicester being open opponents” (Spanish
State Papers, Elizabeth).
[543] Walsingham, conveying this news to Leicester in Flanders
(17th April), says: “There are letters written from certain of my
Lords, by her Majesty’s effectual command, to inhibit him (Drake)
to attempt anything by land or within the ports of Spain.” On the
11th he wrote: “This resolution proceedeth altogether upon a
hope of peace, which I fear may do much harm.”
[544] The first hint to this effect reached Philip too late to be
useful. It was conveyed by Mendoza from Stafford in Paris on the
19th April, the day that Drake reached Cadiz.
[545] Foreign Office Records, Flanders, 32.
[546] This was the great galleon San Felipe, one of the richest
prizes ever brought to England.
[547] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[548] His mother, the owner of Burghley, had just died, aged
eighty-five; and his unmanageable son-in-law, the Earl of Oxford,
still caused him endless trouble. His only family consolation at the
time was the promise of his favourite son, Sir Robert Cecil, whose
great talents and application were already remarkable. How
incessant and varied Lord Burghley’s labours still were may be
seen by the great number of letters addressed to him, entreating
him for help, influence, or advice. The Catholic Earl of Arundel
from the Tower, the Earl of Huntingdon, Lord Buckhurst, Lord
Cobham, and a host of other nobles appealed to him to forward
their suits; Puritan divines like Hammond, Cartwright,
Humphreys, and Travers; prelates like Whitgift, Aylmer, Herbert,
and Sandys, by common accord chose him as the arbiter of their
constant disputes. The Court of Wards, too, entailed a large
correspondence and much personal attention; whilst at this
period Burghley was also deeply concerned in checking the
tendency of Cambridge students to indulge in “satin doublets, silk
and velvet overstocks, great fine ruffs, and costly facings to their
gowns.”
[549] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[550] As instances see letters—Ralegh to Burghley, 27th
December 1587 (State Papers, Domestic, ccvi. 40); Howard to
Burghley, 22nd December (State Papers, Domestic, ccvi. 42);
same to same (Harl. MSS., 6994, 102); Burghley’s own holograph
list of ships and their destinations, 5th January 1588; Hawkins to
Burghley, 18th January 1588 (both in State Papers, Domestic,
cviii.); and many similar papers of this period in State Papers,
Domestic, cviii., and Harl. MSS., 6994.
[551] Stafford told Mendoza (25th February) that Burghley had
written to him saying, that he would do his best to prevent Drake
from sailing, as his voyages were only profitable to himself and
his companions, but an injury to the Queen and an irritation to
foreign princes; and in May, Burghley told Stafford that if he had
remained out of town two days longer, his colleagues would have
let Drake go.
[552] Hatfield Papers, part iii.
[553] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[554] This mission was said to have been entrusted originally
to Paulet, and afterwards to Herbert; but as they did not go to
Flanders, it is more likely to have been left to Crofts. I can,
however, find no record of it except in Spanish account.
[555] The Commissioners were the Earl of Derby, Lord
Cobham, Sir James Crofts, with Valentine Dale and Rogers.
Burghley’s son, Sir Robert Cecil, was also attached. The whole
correspondence of the Commissioners, mostly directed to Lord
Burghley, will be found in Cotton, Vesp., cviii.
[556] Motley thought that Burghley was referred to, but surely
Howard would not call him witless. Probably Crofts is meant.
[557] State Papers, Domestic, ccix.
[558] Howard, writing on the 13th June to Walsingham, says:
“I forbear to write unto my Lord Treasurer because I am sure he
is a very heavy man for my lady his daughter, for which I am
most heartily sorry.”
[559] Writing to Walsingham, “from my house near the Savoy,”
17th July, he says: “I am at present by last night’s torment
weakened in spirits, as I am not able to rise out of my bed; which
is my grief the more, because I cannot come thither where both
my mind and duty do require;” and yet on the same day he
(Burghley) sent a long minute corrected with his own hand to
Darrell, giving directions for the victualling of the navy.
[560] In September, when the news came of the flight of the
Armada, grand reviews of these forces were held previous to their
being disbanded. Lord Chancellor Hatton entertained the Queen
at dinner in Holborn, and his hundred men-at-arms in red and
yellow paraded before her Majesty. The next day (20th August) a
similar ceremony took place at Cecil House, and shortly
afterwards Leicester’s troop was reviewed. But they were all
thrown into the shade by Essex’s splendid force of sixty
musketeers and sixty mounted harquebussiers, in orange-tawny,
with white silk facings, and two hundred light horsemen, in
orange velvet and silver.
[561] See his letter, 30th July (O.S.), to his father, giving him
an account from hearsay of what had happened off Calais (State
Papers, Domestic, ccxiii.).
[562] The ordinary Arabic numbers were never used by
Burghley, even in calculations.
[563] One of the last letters that Leicester wrote was to
Burghley, from Maidenhead, two days only before his death,
asking for some favour for a friend, Sir Robert Jermyn, and
apologising for leaving court without taking leave of the Lord
Treasurer; and in November the widowed Countess of Leicester—
the mother of Essex—wrote begging Burghley to use his influence
with the Queen to buy a vessel belonging to her late husband.
 [564] Lord Burghley’s memoranda (State Papers, Domestic).
For particulars of the expedition see “The Year after the Armada,”
by the present writer.
[565] Don Antonio had been deceived so often in England, that
although preparations for the expedition were being made for
some months previously, he was not convinced that it was really
intended for him until the end of the year 1588.
[566] On the eve of his flight Essex thus explained his action in
a letter to Heneage (Hatfield Papers, part iii. 966): “What my
courses have been I need not repeat, for no man knoweth them
better than yourself. What my state now is I will tell you. My
revenue is no greater than when I sued my livery, my debts at
least two or three and twenty thousand pounds. Her Majesty’s
goodness has been so great I could not ask her for more; no way
left to repair myself but mine own adventure, which I had much
rather undertake than offend her Majesty with suits, as I have
done. If I speed well, I will adventure to be rich; if not, I will not
live to see the end of my poverty.”
[567] His entry in his diary recording the fact runs thus: “1589.
April 4 Die Veneris inter hor 3 et 4 mane obdormit in Domino,
Mildreda Domina Burgley.” She is interred at Westminster Abbey,
with her daughter the Countess of Oxford; a very long Latin
inscription is on the tomb, written by Burghley, recording their
many virtues and the writer’s grief at their loss. There is at
Hatfield (part iii. 973) a note of the mourners and arrangements
for the funeral in Lord Burghley’s handwriting.
[568] MSS. Lansdowne, ciii. 51.
[569] This is a not unnatural mistake under the circumstances
for 9th April 1589. The year then began on the 1st April, and in
his sorrow Lord Burghley had overlooked the change of year.
More than a month after this he wrote a letter, full of grief still, to
his old friend the Earl of Shrewsbury, by which we see that he
was still living in retirement in one of the lodges of his park at
Theobalds, as it is signed “From my poore lodge neare my howss
at Theobalds, 27 Maii 1589. P.S. The Queene is at Barn Elms, but
this night I will attend on her at Westminster, for I am no man
mete for feastings.”
[570] For the particulars of the Catholic plots of Huntly,
Crawford, Errol, Claud Hamilton, and Bothwell (Stuart), see
Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
 [571] State Papers, Domestic.
[572] The Vidame de Chartres was the Huguenot agent in
Elizabeth’s court for some years, and was constantly craving aid
for the cause. His promises of repayment were very rarely kept,
as the Huguenots had most of the wealth of France against them.
Hence the saying quoted.
[573] Egerton MSS., 359.
[574] “November 30. I have heard a rumour that you have
arrived at Calais, and that if the enemy comes to attack that place
you will be there with troops to defend it. If this news be true I
pray you let me hear it from yourself, and advertise me by the
ordinary courier what the enemy is doing and what you think of
these designs. For I shall be very happy to see some opportunity
by which we could together win honour and serve the common
weal. I am idle here, and have nothing to do but to hearken for
such opportunities.” (Essex to La Noue; Hatfield Papers, part iii.)
[575] Hatfield Papers, part iv.
[576] A letter from Sir John Smith to Burghley, 28th January
1590, expresses sorrow “to hear that you were very dangerously
sick, being next unto her Majesty, in my opinion, the pillar and
upholder of the Commonwealth. Howbeit, I am now very glad to
hear you have recovered your health;” to which the Lord
Treasurer appends the note “relatio falsæ” (Hatfield Papers, part
iv.). Later in the year, however (October), the Clerk of the Privy
Seal, writing to Lord Talbot, says, “I never knew my Lord
Treasurer more lusty or fresh in hue than at this hour.” How
heavily business still pressed upon the Lord Treasurer is seen by a
remark of his in a letter to Mr. Grimstone (January 1591): “The
cause” (of his not having written) “is partly for that I have not
leisure, being, as it were, roundly besieged with affairs to be
answered from north, south, east, and west; whereof I hope
shortly to be delivered by supply of some to take charge as her
Majesty’s principal secretary” (Bacon Papers, Birch).
[577] Soon afterwards, Essex was at issue with Robert Cecil
about the appointment of a successor to one of Heneage’s offices
(Essex to Sir Henry Unton; Hatfield Papers, part iv.). How bitter
Essex was against the Cecils is shown by a letter from him to Sir
Henry Unton in Paris (June 1591): “Things do remain in the same
state as they did. They who are most in appetite are not yet
satisfied, whereof there is great discontentment. If it stand at this
stay awhile longer they will despair, for their chief hour-glass hath
little sand left in it, and doth run out still.”
[578] In one of the letters suggested by the secret intelligence
secretary, Phillips, to be written to English Catholics abroad (31st
August 1591), Robert Cecil’s appointment to the Council is noted;
“but the Queen seems determined against Robert Cecil for the
Secretaryship; but my Lord being sick, the whole management of
the Secretary’s place is in his (Robert’s) hands, and as he is
already a Councillor, any employment of him between the Queen
and his father will be the means of installing him in the place”
(State Papers, Domestic).
[579] He expressed this wish as soon as Essex’s opposition to
Robert Cecil’s appointment became manifest. A letter (State
Papers, Domestic) from Hatton, 15th July 1590, thus refers to the
matter: “We can well witness your endless travails, which in her
Majesty’s princely consideration she should relieve you of; but it is
true the affairs are in good hands, as we all know, and thereby
her Majesty is the more sure, and we her poor servants the better
satisfied. God send you help and happiness to your better
contentment.” Nearly all through 1590 and 1591 repeated
reference is made in his correspondence to Burghley’s infirmities.
This, added to the everlasting disputes between the Prelatists and
the Puritans, in which he was between two fires, and the galling
opposition of Essex to his son’s appointment, might well have
excused his desire to be relieved of his heavy burden.
[580] Bacon Papers, Birch. Sir John Norris had recently gone to
Brittany with a small English auxiliary force, and had captured
Guingamp. There were also 600 Englishmen in Normandy and an
English squadron on the Brittany coast. Burghley holds out hopes
also of sending 600 more men to Brittany.
[581] Henry wrote one of his clever characteristic letters to
Elizabeth (5th August), expressing in fervent terms his delight at
hearing of her intention of coming to Portsmouth during his visit
to Normandy. He swears eternal gratitude, and begs her to allow
him to run across the Channel; “et baiser les mains comme Roi de
Navarre, et etre aupres d’elle deux heures, a fin que j’aie ce bien
d’avoir veu, au moins une fois, en ma vie, celle a qui j’ai consacré
et corps et tant ce que j’aurai jamais; et que j’aime et révère plus
que chose que soit au monde.” Referring to Essex’s force, he
says: “Le secours que qu’il vous a pleu à présent m’accorder
m’est en singulière grace, pour la qualité de celluy auquel vous
avez donné la principale charge, et pour la belle force dont il est
composé.” (Hatfield Papers, part iv.)
[582] The Earl’s brother, Walter Devereux, was killed in the
siege.
[583] Essex seems to have quarrelled with every one in France,
and the Council in England condemned his proceedings from the
first. In a letter to the Council (September) he says the whole
purport of their letters is “to rip up all my actions and to reprove
them” (Hatfield Papers, part iv.). The Queen also wrote him a
very angry letter (4th October) consenting on strict conditions
that the English shall only be allowed to remain a month longer in
France.
[584] From a long letter from Burghley (22nd October), Essex
appears to have again left his command and run over to England.
He begged Burghley to ask the Queen’s permission for him to join
Biron at the siege of Caudebec. The Lord Treasurer says he had
not done so, as he was sure the Queen would refuse. Her strict
orders were that neither Essex nor his men should risk
themselves at the siege of Havre or elsewhere except by her
orders. Essex appears to have disobeyed, and returned to France
at once without seeing the Queen. During his absence the
Englishmen had deserted wholesale. Burghley says there were
not 2000 of them remaining—they were unpaid and mutinous,
and, according to Biron and Leighton, were committing outrages
on all sides. Beauvoir de Nocle wrote to Essex as soon as he had
gone back to France (22nd October), “Les courroux de la reine
redoublent.”
[585] See the Queen’s very angry letter peremptorily recalling
him (24th December 1591), (Hatfield Papers, part iv.).
[586] The heroic but unprofitable result of the expedition was
the famous fight of the Revenge and the death of Sir Richard
Grenville, who quite needlessly, and out of sheer obstinacy,
engaged the whole Spanish squadron. The great difficulty of
getting the expedition together is seen by the large number of
towns which addressed Lord Burghley personally or the Council,
begging on the score of poverty to be excused from fitting the
ships, as they had been commanded to do. Southampton, Hull,
Yarmouth, Newcastle, and other towns professed to be so
decayed as to be quite unable to contribute ships (Hatfield
Papers, part iv.).
 [587] The reports of spies of plots in Flanders at the time
amply justified the precautionary measures taken. Burghley was
still appealed to by both religious parties, and he appears at this
time to have been claimed by both. In March 1591 one of the
spy-letters suggested by Phillips to be sent abroad mentions
Burghley’s feud with Archbishop Whitgift and his favour to the
Puritans. The Catholic spy in Flanders, Snowdon, in June of the
same year, says that the anti-Spanish English Catholic refugees
there, Lord Vaux, Sir T. Tresham, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Owen were
opposed to the plots then in progress. “It is said amongst them
that if occasion be offered they will requite the relaxation now
afforded them by his Lordship’s (Burghley’s) moderation, for it is
noted that since the cause of the Catholics came to his
arbitrament things have gone on with wonderful suavity” (State
Papers, Dom.). On the other hand, Phillips (in July) tells another
spy, St. Mains, of the extravagances of the fanatics, Hacket,
Coppinger, and Ardington, and speaks of Burghley as being on
the side of the Puritans.
[588] In a spirited reply (Hatfield Papers) to a remonstrance of
Antony Standen, Lord Burghley insists that Catholics who were
punished by death in England are “only those who profess
themselves by obedience to the Pope to be no subjects of the
Queen; and though their outward pretence be to be sent from the
seminaries to convert people to their religion, yet without
reconciling them from their obedience to the Queen they never
give them absolution.” Those, he says, who still retain their
allegiance to the Queen, but simply absent themselves from
churches, are only fined in accordance with the law. The same
contention is more elaborately stated in Lord Burghley’s essay on
“The Execution of Justice.” The examinations of various spies,
giving alarming accounts of the plots in Flanders at this time to
kill the Queen and Burghley (State Papers, Domestic), afford
ample proof that Lord Burghley’s contention as to the aims of the
Spanish seminarists was correct.
[589] Francis Bacon frankly confessed that he adhered to
Burghley’s enemies because he thought it would be for his own
personal advantage as well as for that of the State; and his
brother Antony writes (Bacon Papers): “On the one side, I found
nothing but fair words, which make fools fain, and yet even in
those no offer or hopeful assistance of real kindness, which I
thought I might justly expect at the Lord Treasurer’s hands, who
had inned my ten years’ harvest into his own barn.”
 [590] It was during this progress at Oxford that the
circumstance thus related by Sir J. Harrington happened: “I may
not forget how the Queen in the midst of her oration casting her
eye aside, and seeing the old Lord Treasurer standing on his lame
feet for want of a stool, she called in all haste for a stool for him;
nor would she proceed in her speech till she saw him provided.
Then she fell to it again as if there had been no interruption.”
Harrington says that some one (probably Essex) twitted her for
doing this on purpose to show off her Latin.
[591] Writing to Archibald Douglas advising him how to excuse
as well as he might the depredations of Scotsmen on Danish
shipping, he says in a postscript, “I write not this in favour of
piracies, for I hate all pirates mortally” (Hatfield Papers, part iv.).
[592] Lansdowne MSS., lxx.
 [593] Lansdowne MSS., lxx., and Hatfield Papers, part iv.
[594] Through the whole of the autumn and winter Lord
Burghley was busy in the liquidation and division of the vast
plunder brought in the carrack. Ralegh had risked every penny he
possessed, and came out a loser. The Queen got the lion’s share,
and the adventurers, with the exception of Ralegh, received large
bonuses.
[595] One of Thomas Phillips’ suggested spy-letters to be sent
abroad (22nd March 1591) says that although the Puritan party is
the weaker, Essex has made Ralegh join him in their favour.
Ralegh’s Puritan birth and breeding naturally gave him sympathy
for Essex’s party, whilst his active temperament and his greed
made him in favour of war, especially with Spain. His only tie with
the Cecils was his early political connection. Though he was
usually in personal enmity with Essex, his natural bent was
therefore more in sympathy with Essex’s party than with that to
which he was supposed to be attached.
[596] State Papers, Domestic.
[597] Numerous similar instances of this devotion occur in the
letters of Burghley to his son and others. In April 1594 he writes
to Sir Robert from Cecil House, that as her Majesty desires to
have him there (Greenwich) to-day, he will go, if it be her
pleasure that he should leave his other engagements. He then
recounts his various duties for the day, including sitting all the
morning in the Court of Wards, “with small ease and much pain,”
and again in the afternoon; the next day he had to preside in the
Exchequer Chamber, the Star Chamber, &c.; “but if her Majesty
wishes I will leave all. I live in pain, yet spare not to occupy
myself for her Majesty.” In July he writes to his son, “I can affirm
nothing of my amendment, but if my attendance shall be
earnestly required I will wear out my time at court as well as
where I am” (State Papers, Domestic). How great and generally
recognised his influence still was is seen by the depositions of
what disaffected persons said of him. Prestall (Kinnersley’s
deposition, State Papers, Domestic, 1591) said “the Lord
Treasurer was the wizard of England, a worldling wishing to fill his
own purse, and good for nobody; so hated that he would not live
long if anything happened to the Queen.” “The Treasurer led the
Queen and Council, and only cared about enriching himself.”
 [598] Declarations of Kinnersley, Young, and Walpole (1594),
State Papers, Domestic.
[599] Ibid.
[600] In accordance with the practice of the time Burghley
doubtless received presents from suitors for office and others
(see State Papers, Domestic); but it is on record that he
frequently refused such offerings when they assumed the form of
bribes to influence judicial decisions or questions of account.
Above all, there is no proof that he accepted any bribes from
Spain, even when almost every other Councillor of the Queen was
paid by one side or the other. Several mentions are made in the
Spanish State Papers of the advisability of paying him heavily, and
even sums were allotted for the purpose; but I have not found a
single statement of his having accepted such payments; although
in after years his son certainly did so.
[601] Francis Bacon answered the book in an able pamphlet
published the same year (1592), called “Observations upon a
Libel published in the Present Year,” in which Lord Burghley and
Sir Robert Cecil are very highly lauded.
[602] One of the loyal English Catholics, St. Mains, writing
(January 1593) to Fitzherbert, says that “the Lord Treasurer has
been dangerously ill, but is now well recovered, thanks be to
God; for the whole state of the realm depends upon him. If he
go, there is not one about the Queen able to wield the State as it
stands.” The principal Catholic refugees against Spain at this
period were Charles Paget, William Gifford, the Treshams, Hugh
Griffith, Dr. Lewis, Bishop of Cassano, the Scottish Carthusian
Bishop of Dunblane, Thomas Morgan, Thomas Hesketh, Nicholas
Fitzherbert, &c.
[603] Francis was member for Middlesex, whilst his brother
Antony sat for Wallingford. The Queen remained angry with
Francis for many months. It was only in September that Essex
with the greatest difficulty obtained permission for him to appear
at court (Bacon Papers, Birch).
[604] Morice was sent to Tutbury Castle and kept there in
prison for some years for making a speech in this Parliament
complaining of the grievances of the Puritans. Wentworth was
sent to the Tower, and Stevens and Walsh to the Fleet. Puckering,
the Lord Keeper, told the House that the Queen had not called it
together to make new laws; there were more than enough
already. “It is, therefore, her Majesty’s pleasure that no time be
spent therein” (D’Ewes).
[605] Phillips’ suggestions to Sterrell (State Papers, Domestic).
[606] Elizabeth seems to have received the first hint of his
intention in May, and Lord Burghley sends an indignant letter to
his son about it (26th May). He ends by saying, “If I may not
have some leisure to cure my head, I shall shortly ease it in my
grave; and yet if her Majesty mislike my absence, I will come
thither” (Hatfield Papers, part iv.). See also letters of Sir Thomas
Edmunds (State Papers, France, Record Office); and Elizabeth’s
curious letters to Henry (July), signed, “Votre tres assurée sœur si
ce soit à la vielle mode: avec la nouvelle je n’ay qui faire, E. R.”
(Hatfield Papers).
[607] State Papers, Domestic.
[608] How deeply Lady Bacon resented her son’s friendship
with Perez is seen in a letter of hers to Francis Bacon: “I pity your
brother; but yet so long as he pities not himself, but keepeth that
bloody Perez, yea, a court companion and a bed companion—a
proud, profane, costly fellow, whose being about him I verily
believe the Lord God doth mislike, and doth the less bless your
brother in credit and in health. Such wretches as he is never
loved your brother, but for his credit, living upon him” (Bacon
Papers, Birch).
[609] Nichols’ Progresses, vol. iii.
[610] Burghley appears to have been very dangerously ill a few
weeks afterwards at Windsor. Essex’s spy Standen wrote to his
friend Antony Bacon (6th November) that he had gone up to the
Lord Treasurer’s lodging to inquire after his health; but was
refused admittance by the servants, who told him, however, that
his Lordship had rested better than on the previous night. Whilst
Standen “was going down the stairs, the Queen was at my back,
who, unknown to me, had been visiting my Lord, so I stayed
among the rest to see her Majesty pass. A little while after I met
Mr. Cooke, who told me, that true it was that my Lord had
somewhat rested the night past; but that this morning his
Lordship had a very rigorous fit of pain, and dangerous” (Bacon
Papers, Birch). We hear from the same source of similar attacks
in December and January following.
[611] “I hope you will remember,” wrote Raleigh to Howard,
“that it is the Queen’s honour and safety to assail rather than to
defend” (Hatfield Papers).
[612] Frobisher was mortally wounded in the assault.
[613] See the extraordinary letters of Foulis, Cockburn, and
other Scottish agents, to Bacon, &c., in the Bacon Papers (Birch).
“Mr Bowes, the English Ambassador here (in Scotland), is very
much scandalised at the behaviour of Crato (i.e. Burghley) and
his son towards me, and assures me he will remonstrate with the
Queen at his return,” writes Foulis to Bacon (Bacon Papers); and
similar expressions in the letters of other French and Scotch
agents show clearly that Essex took care to cultivate the idea that
it was only the Cecils who prevented the adoption of a generous
policy towards them.
[614] See the many confessions and declarations of spies and
informers (1594) as to alleged plots for the murder of the Queen,
Burghley, &c., at this time (State Papers, Domestic).
[615] It was here, and at Eton College, where he was lodged
when the court was at Windsor, that he wrote his bitter
“Relaciones” against Philip. He alleged that men were sent to
London to assassinate him, and with indefatigable zeal of tongue
and pen kept up and increased the ill-feeling in the court against
Spain. His copious correspondence with Henry IV. leaves no doubt
whatever either as to the real object of his mission or the utter
baseness with which he executed it.
[616] See Burghley’s correspondence with Andrada, Da Vega,
and others (State Papers, Domestic), and Mendoza’s references to
the same men in the Spanish State Papers.
[617] On the way from this examination Sir Robert Cecil and
Essex rode together in a coach. The former—surely to annoy
Essex—reverted to a subject which had caused intense acrimony
between the Earl and the Cecils for months past, namely, the
appointment to the vacant Attorney-Generalship which Essex was
violently urging for Francis Bacon; an appointment to which
neither the Queen nor Lord Burghley would consent, although the
latter was willing for him to have the Solicitor-Generalship. The
abuse and insult heaped upon the Cecils behind their backs on
this account by the Earl, by the scoundrel Standen, and by the
Bacons themselves, may be seen in the Bacon Papers (Birch). On
this occasion the violent rashness and want of tact on the part of
Essex is very clear. Cecil asked him, as if the subject was new,
who he thought would be the best man for the Attorney-
Generalship. The Earl was astonished, and replied that he knew
very well, as he, Cecil, was the principal reason why Bacon had
not already been appointed. Cecil then expressed his surprise that
Essex should waste his influence in seeking the appointment of a
raw youth. Essex flew in a rage, and told Cecil that he was
younger than Francis, and yet he aspired to a much higher post
than the Attorney-Generalship, i.e. the Secretaryship of State, and
then, quite losing control of himself, swore that he would have
the appointment for Francis, and would “spend all my power,
might, authority, and amity, and with tooth and nail procure the
same against whomsoever.” The hot-headed Earl foolishly ended
by an undisguised threat against Cecil and his father (Bacon
Papers), which we may be sure the former, at least, did not
forget, although Essex had quite changed his tone and wrote
quite humbly to Cecil on the matter in the following May (Hatfield
Papers). It is hardly necessary to say that Bacon was
disappointed of the Attorney-Generalship.
[618] See the extensive correspondence and proceedings in the
case (State Papers, Domestic, and Hatfield Papers).
[619] Cecil to Windebanke (State Papers, Domestic).
[620] Great obscurity still surrounds the case. Apart from his
own alleged confession, Lopez’s condemnation depended upon
the declarations of the double spies who were his accomplices,
and he solemnly asserted his innocence on the scaffold. I have
carefully examined all the evidence—much of it hitherto unknown
—and although there is no space to enter into the matter here, I
am personally convinced that the service that Lopez was to
render was to poison Don Antonio—not the Queen—and bring
about some sort of modus vivendi between England and Spain.
[621] Bacon Papers, Birch.
[622] Ibid.
[623] Hatfield Papers, part iv.
[624] Correspondence with Burghley, in the Hatfield Papers,
part v., and State Papers, Flanders (Record Office); and with
Essex, in Bacon Papers (Birch). Burghley, apparently to occupy his
mind during his illness, wrote a most elaborate minute, “to be
shown to her Majesty when she is disposed to be merry, to see
how I am occupied in logic and neglect physic;” proving that her
demands upon the States to be made by Bodley are founded
upon the maxims of civil law. “If,” he says, “my hand and arm did
not pain me as it doth in distempering my spirits, I would send
longer argument” (Hatfield Papers, part v.). Thanks to Burghley’s
persistence, terms were made with the States.
[625] Printed in Strype’s “Annals.”
[626] The Queen at this time appears to have been desirous of
saving Burghley trouble. When the court was at Nonsuch
(September 1595), the Council was held in his room, the Queen
being present. (Bacon Papers.)
[627] That he was not idle in mind even in his greatest pain is
shown by the fact that during this autumn, whilst he was almost
entirely disabled, he not only continued his close attendance to
State affairs, but gave a great amount of attention to the new
question which was disturbing the Church, and especially setting
the University of Cambridge by the ears. A Mr. Barrett, of Gonville
and Caius, had preached a sermon in which the doctrine of free
grace was enunciated. This was thought by many to be “Popish,”
and Burghley, as Vice-Chancellor, ordered him to recant. The
doctrine was eloquently defended by Burghley’s protegé,
Professor Baro. Curiously enough, Whitgift, a prelate of prelates,
then came out with a series of articles (called the Lambeth
articles) enforcing the extreme Calvinistic doctrine of absolute
predestination. Burghley was passionately appealed to by both
parties, and while supporting the authority of Whitgift, expressed
his dissent from the doctrine of predestination. The Queen,
annoyed at the question being raised, instructed Sir Robert Cecil
to stop the dispute, which had caused much trouble both to her
and Burghley.
[628] Venetian State Papers.
[629] In extenso in Bacon Papers (Birch).
[630] Burghley did not prevail with the Queen at this juncture
without trouble when Essex was near. In March 1596, Essex
arrived at the court at Richmond, and Standen says: “The old
man upon some pet would needs away against her will on
Thursday last, saying that her business was ended, and he would
for ten days go take physic. When she saw it booted not to stay
him she said he was a froward old fool” (Bacon Papers). The
following dignified letter written soon afterwards by Burghley to
his son evidently refers to this incident: “My loving son, Sir Robert
Cecil, knt., I do hold, and will always, this course in such matters
as I differ in opinion from her Majesty. As long as I may be
allowed to give advice I will not change my opinion by affirming
the contrary, for that were to offend God, to whom I am sworn
first; but as a servant I will obey her Majesty’s command and no
wise contrary the same; presuming that she being God’s chief
minister here, it shall be God’s will to have her commandments
obeyed—after that I have performed my duty as a Councillor, and
shall in my heart wish her commandments to have such good
success as she intendeth. You see I am a mixture of divinity and
policy; preferring in policy her Majesty before all others on earth,
and in divinity the King of Heaven above all.” This letter seems to
enshrine Burghley’s lifelong rule of conduct as a minister.
[631] Hatfield Papers, part v.
[632] Lord Burghley must be absolved from all blame for the
hesitation to succour Calais. The delay and failure were entirely
the fault of the Queen. Whilst Burghley held back and resisted
attempts to drag England into war with Spain unnecessarily;
when English interests were really at stake, as in the case of
Calais, he could be as active as any one. On the 6th April, as soon
as the news arrived, his secretary wrote to Robert Cecil—the Lord
Treasurer being “freshly pinned” with the gout and unable to
write—approving of Essex’s plan to relieve Calais; and on the 10th
he writes himself, after the town had surrendered, but whilst the
citadel held out: “I am heartily sorry to perceive her Majesty’s
resolution to stay this voyage, being so far forward as it is; and
surely I am of opinion that the citadel being relieved the town will
be regained, and if for want of her Majesty’s succour it shall be
lost, by judgment of the world the blame will be imputed to her.…
These so many changes breed hard opinions of counsell.” Sancy
and the Duke de Bouillon came to Elizabeth at Greenwich to
remonstrate with her, in Henry’s name, on the effect which her
demand for Calais in return for her aid had produced. Sancy had
a long conversation with Burghley on the 23rd April, and the
latter frankly told him that the conversion of Henry had entirely
changed the situation. The only common interests now, he said,
between the two countries was their vicinity. Sancy says the Lord
Treasurer praised the Spaniards to the skies, to the detriment of
the French. The French envoy was endeavouring to secure an
offensive and defensive alliance with England, which Burghley
steadily opposed. How could Henry help Elizabeth? the Treasurer
asked; and what more could Elizabeth do for him than she was
doing? In one of their interviews Burghley flatly told Sancy that
the Queen did not intend to strengthen Henry in order that he
might make an advantageous peace over her head. Sancy was
shocked at such an imputation on his master’s honour, and gave a
written pledge of Henry that he would never treat without
England, and this was embodied in the treaty (26th May 1596).
Burghley made as good terms as he could, but he never was in
favour of the treaty. His letter quoted above (page 479) and his
quarrel with the Queen evidently had reference to this subject.
[633] Bacon Papers.
[634] Writing from Theobalds to Robert Cecil soon after the
expedition sailed from Plymouth, he says, “I came here rather to
satisfy my mind by change of place, and to be less pressed by
suitors, than with any hope of ease or relief.”
[635] Essex had lately, and most intemperately, been trying to
force Bodley into the Secretaryship. His importunity was so great
as to offend the Queen, and predisposed her against his
protegés. How jealous Antony Bacon was may be seen in his
letter. “Elphas peperit; so that now the old man may say, with the
rich man in the gospel, ‘requiescat anima mea.’” Bacon Papers.
[636] That the reconciliation was not easy will be seen in
Essex’s letters in the Bacon Papers. The Earl writes in September
to Lady Russell, “Yesterday the Lord Treasurer and Sir Robert
Cecil did, before the Queen, contest with me, … and this day I
was more braved by your little cousin (Cecil) than ever I was by
any man in my life. But I was, and am, not angry, which is all the
advantage I have of him.” In the following April Essex entertained
Cecil and Ralegh at dinner, “and a treaty of peace was confirmed.”
During the Earl’s disgrace with the Queen shortly afterwards,
Cecil appears to have behaved in a friendly manner towards him.
[637] It is curious that in the previous year, when Essex was
going on the Cadiz expedition, Bellièvre, the French minister,
expressed an opinion that “his appointment is a suggestion of the
Lord Treasurer, in order to divert the Queen from sending aid to
his Majesty (Henry IV.), and to get rid of the Earl of Essex on the
pretext of this honourable appointment, which would leave him
(Burghley) master of the Council.” It is fair to say that the
Venetian ambassador who transmits this opinion, expresses his
disbelief in it. Venetian State Papers.
[638] That the sagacious Bacon saw and foretold the
consequences of Essex’s willingness to absent himself in risky
enterprises, is evident from his letters to the Earl in October 1596
(Bacon’s Works, ed. Montagu, vol. 9).
[639] There were about 120 ships, English and Dutch, and a
force of some 6000 men, including 1000 English veterans from
the Low Countries, led by the gallant Sir Francis Vere.
[640] State Papers, Domestic.
[641] State Papers, Domestic.
[642] State Papers, Domestic.
[643] Ibid.
[644] Ibid.
[645] De Maisse, the French peace envoy to England, wrote,
“These people are still dwelling on their imagination of the house
of Burgundy, … but it does not please them to have so powerful a
neighbour as the King of Spain.”
[646] Full particulars of his embassy will be found in his
Journal, in the Archives de la Ministère des affaires étrangères,
Paris, partly reproduced in Prévost-Paradol’s “Elizabeth et Henry
IV.”
[647] For Cecil’s account of his embassy see Bacon Papers,
Birch. There are also a great number of papers and letters on the
subject of the mission in Cotton Vesp., cviii., and B.M. MSS. Add.
25,416.
[648] State Papers, Domestic.
[649] Chamberlain Letters, Camden Society.
[650] The Venetian Ambassador in France writes at this time
(24th July): “The States are sending three representatives to
England to urge the Queen to continue the war, as in her councils
there are not wanting those who recommend this course, chiefly
the Earl of Essex; but the Lord Treasurer is opposed, and, more
important still, the Queen herself is inclined to peace.”
[651] Desiderata Curiosa.
[652] A superficial observer, Dudley Carlton, writes a few days
after Burghley’s death: “There is so much business to be thought
of on the Lord Treasurer’s death. The Queen was so prepared for
it by the small hopes of recovery that she takes it not over
heavily, and gives ears to her suitors. The great places are in a
manner passed before his death.” (State Papers, Dom.)
 [653] The full arrangements for the funeral will be found in the
State Papers, Domestic, of the 29th August (Record Office). After
the funeral at Westminster, the body was carried with great state
to Stamford and buried at St. Martin’s Church, in accordance with
the will. Dr. Nares appears to be in doubt as to whether the
interment was at Westminster or Stamford, but the State Papers
seem to admit of no question on the point.
[654] Lytton to Carlton (State Papers, Domestic).
[655] Chamberlain Letters.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com