pardon the two principal prisoners (regarded by Gardiner as "a want of delicate moral perception "); and while all the secondary agents in the murder were executed, the Earl and the Countess were reprieved, and sent to the Tower, where they remained about five years, and were then pardoned and released. Nor was this all, for after his condemnation James gave Somerset £4000 a year in land, which he took grants of in the names of his servants; corresponded with him after his release, "and seems to have given him hopes of being restored to his former favour."1 Was the character of James elevated by his treatment of Arabella Stuart? A case, notes Hallam, as 66 among the hard measures of despotism, even if it were not also grossly in violation of English law" (I, 350). Having incurred the King's displeasure for her marriage with Lord Seymour, she was sent to the Tower in 1611, where, notwithstanding her piteous appeals to be released, she remained till her death on 15 September, 1615. For nearly three years she had been insane,2 but the immediate cause of her decease was dysentery-Tower dysentery. Her remains, unattended and uncared for, were removed to Westminster Abbey, and buried like those of a dog. The coffin, placed on that of Mary Stuart, was "without a plate, and so frail, that the skull and bones were seen, as far back as the record of visitors extends, visible through its shattered frame." "3 The reason is thus recorded by James's apologist: "Because to have a great funeral for one dying out of the King's favour would have reflected upon the King's honour, and therefore it was omitted."4 The "King's honour" was in abeyance when James despoiled Arabella during the latter part of the preceding century, "of her paternal earldom with its broad lands, and even of her mother's jewels, which had fallen into his hands on occasion of the death of Thomas Fowler." 5 Then we have the cases of Ralegh, of Cobham, and of Northumberland, the "diabolical triplicity"; whose ruin was mainly effected by means of the malignant letters of Lord H. Howard (afterwards Earl of Northampton), written on behalf of himself and of Cecil to James, during the last two years of Elizabeth's reign. The asserted plot of 1603, of which Gardiner declared in his latest work that Ralegh was "undeniably innocent,"7 and yet caused the ruin of himself and of Cobham. The opportunity for accomplishing that of Northumberland was created by the Gunpowder Plot, with which he was accused of suspected complicity. But notwithstanding all the misleading assertions and sophistry of 1 Hallam, I, 352-4; Archæologia," XVIII, 352-8; Gardiner, II, 340 et seq. 2 Vide "Life of A. Stuart," by E. T. Bradley, II, 63 (1889). 3 "Histor. Memorials of Westminster Abbey," by Dean Stanley, 157 (1882). 4 Bp. Goodman, "Court of James I," I, 209 (1839). 5 Edwards, I, 298. 66 6 Trans. D. A.," XXXV, 569. 7 "Camb. Mod. Hist.," 562. Coke, no proof or evidence could be produced to show that he "had the slightest cognisance of it." Nevertheless, he was pronounced guilty, and received the severe sentence of being deprived of all his offices; of being fined £30,000; and of being imprisoned "during His Majesty's pleasure." He remained in the Tower for eleven years, and paid £11,000 to the King.1 On reviewing the foregoing statements in illustration of James's kingcraft, could it be considered as probable or possible for the King to have treated Ralegh differently from others, when in his opinion the higher qualities of wisdom, patriotism, and justice were in any way detrimental to his interests? The termination of his unworthy reign is thus related by James Welwood (1652-1727) in his "Memoirs": "King James went off the Stage not much lamented; and left in legacy to his Son, a discontented People; an unnecessary expensive War; an incumbred Revenue, and an exhausted Treasury in fine, he entail'd upon his Son all the Miseries that befel him" (ed. 1749, p. 17). 1 Memoir of Northumberland in “D. N. B.”; “The House of Percy,” by G. Brenau, II, 116 et seq., 199–200 (1902). BOTANICAL NOTES. No. III. BY HELEN SAUNDERS. (Read at Lynton, July, 1906.) CONTINUING the plan I have hitherto adopted, I do not intend to record plants which are generally common in Devon, or which have been mentioned in my former papers, unless there is some particular interest attached to them. BIDEFORD. Mr. Evans, formerly Master of the United Service College at Westward Ho, published in 1881 his hand-list of plants occurring within seven miles of the College, and added supplementary pages in 1881, 1883, 1886, and another in 1894, for which the radius was extended in some directions to twelve or thirteen miles; therefore, no doubt, the list contained all the wild flowers of the neighbourhood of Bideford. But I must mention some I have observed there which I have not previously reported in my notes. It seems to me that the charming little plant Senecio squalidus deserves a better title, being a pretty as well as rare plant growing on bare walls and rocks, attracting admiration by its bright yellow florets rising from a cupshaped involucre, with leaves, some drooping and others erect. The only reported British stations are Oxford, Berkshire, Warwick, and Cork. It is said to be a native of Sicily. It was first published in Oxford by Paul Boccone in 1674 in his book of the rare plants of Sicily. It was discovered at Bideford about 1842. As Linnæus so named it in his "Species Plantarum," published in August, 1753, and also quoted in his earlier work, "Hortus Upsaliensis" (1749), we must allow he had a good reason for doing so. Mr. Hiern considers it to be on account of its peculiar odour; and although I have not noticed anything unpleasant about it myself, it is, no doubt, disagreeable to some persons. is sometimes called Oxford ragwort. I found Lepidium perforatum near the sea at Westward Ho; it is, no doubt, an alien and only recently introduced. I have not heard of its having been discovered at any other station in the county. SIDMOUTH. I am sorry I had very little time for collecting specimens at Sidmouth, which locality possesses a rich flora. I refer those who wish to become acquainted with it to Mr. W. H. Cullen's "Flora Sidostiensis," in which he has recorded many plants which are rare in the county of Devon. On the rocks by the sea I noticed Daucus maritimus, which Professor Babington placed as a synonym of Daucus Carota. It is found on the sea-coasts of Devon and Cornwall, but it seems to be rare in other counties. In Harpford Wood, a short distance from the railway station, I observed an Ajuga of an unusual form, but not having secured a good specimen, it could not be named with certainty. I gathered Sagina maritima, sea pearlwort, and many other flowers which are common in the county and have been reported from other places. TEIGNMOUTH. The flora of Teignmouth has been fully reported in Ravenshaw's "Flowering Plants of Devonshire" and in the Handbook to the Flora of Torquay," by Robert Stewart, published in 1860. Miss Larter has also written a charming and descriptive book on the plants growing wild in the neighbourhood of Torquay for many miles in all directions ("Manual of the Flora of Torquay," published in 1900). Raphanus maritimus Silene maritima Oxalis corniculata Medicago sativa (two shades) Trifolium suffocatum T. subterraneum (Dawlish) Vicia bithynica Lathyrus Nissolia L. sylvestris Sedum glaucum (albescens) Scabiosa columbaria Inula conyza Utricularia vulgaris Chenopodium murale Trichonema Columne (Romulea) Sclerochloa loliacea (Poa) Triticum pungens Sea radish Yellow wood sorrel. Common Lucerne. Subterranean clover. Bithynian vetch. Everlasting pea. Glaucous stonecrop (Mr. Griffith). Small scabious. Ploughman's spikenard. Sea nightshade, bitter-sweet. I have gathered Romulea Columna early in the spring on Dawlish Warren. It is very rare in England; Dawlish is almost the only station. It is found in Jersey and Guernsey, and has been reported from Cornwall. It is a |