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 was made use of by Sir Christopher Hatton in drawing up his brief of the case against Mary Stuart which perhaps formed the basis of his speech against Mary in the House of Commons on the 3rd of November 1586. For that reason, though it is undated in the original, it has been assigned to November 1586.
page 74 note 1 A full account of the case against Throgmorton was printed by the govern ment in 1584. It has been reprinted in the Harleian Miscellany (1808) iii, p. 190.
page 74 note 2 This so called “Rheimish” book was a book written by Edmund Grately and Gilbert Gifford, two priests at the English college at Rheims. These men belonged to the Secular as opposed to the Jesuit faction of the English Catholics, and their book constituted an attack upon the Jesuits. There can be little doubt that it was written at the instigation of Walsingham himself. It was begun late in April, 1586 (cf. Aldred to Walsingham, 24th April, 1586. Cal. Domes. Adda. 1580–1625, p. 174) and sent over to England late in June (cf. Foxley alias Grately to Walsingham, 21 June, 1586. Cal. Dom. Adda. 1580–1625 p. 179) and was probably published, although no copies of it appear to be in existence now. It seems to have had no good effect, but it got both Grately and Gifford into considerable trouble later on (cf. Cath. Record Soc. Miscellanea, i, p. 87). Savage said, in his confession, that it had merely been written to “blear the eyes” of the English government, (cf. R.O., S. P. Mary Q. of S. xix, no. 91). Of course it was not generally known that Walsingham had had anything to do with the making of it.
page 75 note 1 This charge against Mary is amply justified by her own correspondence.
page 75 note 2 The “association” referred to here was the so called “Bond of Association,” formed to defend Elizabeth's life. It was drawn up in November 1584 by the Privy Council and was signed by the royal officers and the gentry at large throughout England. The “Bond” is printed in State Trials, i, p. 1161. Mary had been allowed to sign it at her own request.
page 75 note 3 Cf. Mary to Babington, 17 July, 1586, printed above.
page 76 note 1 This charge finds solid foundation in Mary's letter to Chas. Paget of May 20, 1586 (Labanoff, , vi, p. 343).Google Scholar
page 76 note 2 This sentence is written on the margin in the original. In Mary's, letter to Babington of July 17 she warned him not to put too much faith in the French ambassador.
page 76 note 3 Cf. Mary to Chas. Paget, 20 May, 1586, cited in n. 1, and also Mary to Arch. of Glasgow, 20 Jan. 1576/7 (Labanoff, , vi, p. 345).Google Scholar
page 76 note 4 Cf Mary to Paget, just cited.
page 76 note 5 Cf. Englefield to Mary, Jan. 2, 1584/5 in Record Office (S.P. Mary Q. of S., xv, p. 4).
page 77 note 1 This charge, based apparently upon a statement which Mary made in her letter to Mendoza of the 20 May, 1586 (Labanoff, , vi, p. 312Google Scholar) to the effect that she had written the letter in her own hand for greater secrecy, is quite upset by the fact that Mary's projected will, conveying her throne to Philip II in case her son should not be converted, is written in Nau's own hand (Labanoff, , iv, p. 351 n.).Google Scholar
page 77 note 2 Drawn from Mary's letter to Babington of July 17, 1586.