No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
This paper is written in a contemporary clerkly hand. It is not dated, but there can be little doubt that it belongs to the date assigned to it. The charges themselves are drawn almost verbatim from Mary's letter to Elizabeth of the 8th of November, 1582 (Labanoff, v. p. 318). On the 6th of April, 1583, when Elizabeth directed the Earl of Shrewsbury and Robert Beale to deal with Mary, she supplied them with a brief resumé of Mary's charges against her, together with answers to be made to them (S.P. Mary Q. of S. xii, nos. 48, 49 in R.O.). Very likely this paper dates from the same time, although it does not correspond in all points with the resumé supplied to Shrewsbury and Beale.
page 10 note 1 Mary, in her letter, makes this charge more specific and though she names no name, she evidently points to Thomas Randolph whom she dismissed from Scotland in 1566 for having commerce with her rebels (Labanoff, v, p. 321 n.). Elizabeth replied to this charge as follows:—“Randolph, who seemeth to be the nameles man whom she meaneth, being charged by Johnson, an infamous and condemned man, to have delivered unto him, the said Johnson, certain monny for the L. of Patarro, did cleere himself sufficiently of that imputacon, and in respect of the good offices don by him was afterwards required by hirself to be continued there.” This answer is accurate as far as it goes, yet there can be little doubt of the substantial justice of Mary's charge.
page 10 note 2 This refers to Mary's written abdication of the Scottish throne which she made under constraint at Lochleven on the 24th of July, 1567. It is not unlikely that Throgmorton gave the advice which Mary accuses him of giving (cf. Throgmorton to Eliz. July 18, 1567. Cal. Scot, ii, p. 355), but it is certain that at the time he was working hard in her interests. He himself declared that it was only through his instrumentality that Mary's life had been spared by her enemies (cf. Throgmorton to Leicester, 31 July, 1567. Cal. Scot, ii, p. 368).
page 10 note 3 Elizabeth in her reply to this acknowledged the fact, but declared that Mary's conduct had absolved her from her promise. “That friendly promise was made before her [Mary's] husband's death when she carried herself well. Promises and the bond of friendship are subject to evile interpretations and grounded uppon vertue. By her miscariage of herself afterwards, this ground failed, and therefore her Majestic was consequently noe more tyed to such a promise.” [S. P. Mary Q. of S. xii, no. 49].
page 11 note 1 Independent evidence upon this point is wanting. Elizabeth herself avoids the charge in her reply, which suggests that it was probably well founded.
page 11 note 2 The manuscript is badly frayed along the lower edge.
page 11 note 3 In Mary's letter, already referred to, this charge reads;—“Vostre prison, sans aucun droict et juste fondement, a jà destruict mon corps.” (Labanoff, v, P. 331).