ned in a
highly treasonable manner, and enters into a union in God's name, in
which each man pledges himself to the others, to combat with word and
deed, and even to pursue with arms, all who should make any attempt on
the Queen's person; and not to rest till these wretches were
completely destroyed. If the attempt was so far successful as to raise
a claim to the crown, they pledged themselves never to recognise such
a claim: whoever broke this oath and separated himself from the
association should be treated by the other members as a perjurer.[256]

The main object of this association was to cut off all prospect of the
succession from any attempt in favour of the Queen of Scots: a great
part of the nation pledged itself to reject a claim made good in this
manner as exceptionable in every respect. The Parliament of 1585, many
of whose members belonged to the association, not merely confirmed it
formally: it now also expressly enacted, that persons in whose favour
a rebellion should be attempted, and an attack on the Queen
undertaken, should lose their right to the crown: if they themselves
took part in any such plots, they were to forfeit their life. The
Queen was empowered to appoint a commission of at least twenty-four
members to judge of this offence.

These resolutions and unions were of a compass extending far beyond
the present occasion, however weighty. How important the
ecclesiastical contest had become in all questions concerning the
supreme temporal power! That the deposition of Queen Elizabeth,
pronounced by the Pope, had no effect was due to the Protestant
tendencies of the country, and to the fact that her hereditary claim
had been hitherto unassailed. But now it was a similar hereditary
claim, made by Queen Mary, not, it is true, formally recognised, but
also not rejected, on which the partisans of this princess based their
chief hope. Mary herself, who always combined the most vivid dynastic
feelings with her religious inclinations, in her letters and
statements does not lay such stress on anything as on the
unconditional validity of her claim to inherit the throne. When for
instance her son rejected the joint government which she proposed to
him, she remarked with striking acuteness that this involved an
infringement of the maxims of hereditary right; since he rejected her
authorisation to share in the government, and recognised as legitimate
the refusal of obedience she had experienced from her rebell