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 in Hatton's own hand. It contains a brief summary of the whole case against Mary Stuart, based not only upon her supposed complicity in the Babington plot but also upon her supposed complicity in the earlier plots of Norfolk, of Throgmorton and of Parry. It is apparent that Hatton drew most of his material for this brief from Documents XII, XIV and XV printed above. Indeed, it seems highly probable that he collected many of the foregoing papers for that express purpose. The question remains as to the use to which this brief was put. Hatton can hardly have prepared it for the actual trial of Mary Stuart because he had very little to do with the conduct of that affair, Burghley acting then as spokesman for the government. Most likely Hatton drew it up for the purposes of a speech against Mary which he delivered in the House of Commons on the 3rd of November, 1586 (D'Ewes p. 393). In support of this theory, it is to be observed in the first place that the paper begins, “First, her Majesty's instructions uttered by the Chancellor,” which accords with the order of proceeding in the House as set forth in D'Ewes (p. 391); and in the second place, that the second part of this paper, written across the back of the first part, is a briefer summary of the case against Mary, larded with appropriate Latin quotations and headed, “To acquaint the Parliament with the brief sum of the causes.”
page 83 note 1 Down to this point the brief appears to have been drawn from Document XIV.
page 84 note 1 Cf. Dr. Allen to Mary, 26 January 1585/6. In R.O. S.P. Mary Q. of S. xvii, no. 74.
page 84 note 2 This letter from Mary to Dr. Lewis is not printed by Labanoff. There is a copy of it in cipher in the Record Office (S.P. Mary Q. of S. xviii, no. 60), endorsed by Thos. Phelippes,—“Decifred, 18 July, 1586.” The letter was produced before the Commissioners at their meeting in the Star Chamber (Oct. 25, 1586) to pass sentence on Mary and is mentioned in the account of the proceedings there, printed in the Hardwicke Papers (Vol. i, p. 224 seq.).
page 86 note 1 With the exception of the mention of Mary's favour to Morgan after the Parry plot and of her letters to Allen and Lewis, the brief from p. 84 n. 1 to this point is nothing more than an abbreviated form of Serjeant Puckering's notes on the same subject (Document XII) as may be seen by a comparison of the two.
page 87 note 1 Some parts of Savage's confessions are preserved in the Record Office (S.P. Mary Q. of S. xix, no. 38). A summary of his confession is also in the Record Office (S.P. Mary Q. of S. xix, no. 91). A full copy of Babington's several confessions is among Lord Calthorpe's MSS. (Vol. xxxi f. 218 seq.). Ballard's, Tichbourne's and Donn's confessions are missing in their original forms, but summaries of them will be found in the Record Office (S.P. Mary Q. of S. xix, no. 91).
page 87 note 2 The two letters referred to here are those of Babington to Mary informing her of the plot and of hers to him encouraging him to proceed in it (cf. Document XI b. d.).
page 87 note 3 This cipher, attested by Babington, is missing in the original. It appears to have been laid before the Commissioners at their session in the Star Chamber (cf. Hardwicke Papers i, p. 234) and probably it was the paper to which Burghley referred in his “Brief Plot for the course of proceedings against the Scottish Queen” (Cotton MSS. Cai. C. ix f. 507) when he wrote, “Note that the cipher be carried with us.” But cf. Morris, , p. 233Google Scholar for another interpretation of Burghley's note.
page 87 note 4 Tichbourne and Donn both confessed that Babington had shown them Mary's letter, Tichbourne adding that he had assisted Babington in deciphering it (cf. Summary of Confessions cited above).
page 87 note 5 Both Nau and Curie, Mary's secretaries, bore testimony on several occasions to the fact that Mary had written to Babington encouraging him in his conspiracy to kill Elizabeth. Considerable doubt has been thrown upon the value of their testimony. They certainly gave it under some pressure and Nau retracted more than once. At the important moment however, when they were led before the Commissioners in the Star Chamber they appear to have confirmed their testimony against Mary by oath (Hardwicke Papers i, p. 237). Nau afterwards denied having sworn this oath, but not in very convincing terms (cf. C. Nau. History of Mary Stuart. Introduction by J. Stevenson pp. 1, lxii).
page 88 note 1 Cf. Mary's letters to Chas. Paget, Thos. Morgan and B. de Mendoza etc. 17 July, 1586 (Labanoff, , vi, pp. 399 seq.).Google Scholar
page 88 note 2 Mary's letter to Chas. Paget, just cited, which is also the letter to Paget referred to in the passages following.
page 88 note 3 Mary to Englefield, 17 July, 1586 (Labanoff vi, pp. 404 seq.).
page 88 note 4 These points are all drawn from Mary's letters, dated July 17th 1586 and later which are printed in Labanoff Vol. vi, pp. 399 seq.
page 89 note 1 This is an abstract of Document XV as will be seen by comparison.
page 89 note 2 This is an abstract of Document IV.
page 90 note 1 This heading and the notes following it are written, in the original, in four columns across the back of the outer sheet of the foregoing notes, of which they will be found to be little more than an abstract. There can be little doubt that these notes at least were made for Hatton's speech in Parliament. Possibly they were the very ones from which he spoke. The Latin quotations of Scripture were doubtless added to give tone and a certain odor of sanctity to the various points he makes. The notes are written partly in Italian script and partly in Hatton's own hand.
page 90 note 2 “So detestable crimes,” written above the line here in Hatton's hand.
page 90 note 3 “Holy hand,” written above the line here in Hatton's hand.
page 91 note 1 It will be observed that this quotation is also cited in Document XX, a fact which may establish a connection between it and this paper.
page 91 note 2 Ibid.
page 91 note 3 Mary drew up a will when she was prisoner at Sheffield in which she bequeathed the Scottish crown and her title to the English crown to Philip of Spain unless her son should be converted to Roman Catholicism (Labanoff, iv, p. 354Google Scholar). This will was found among her papers at Chartley.
page 91 note 4 In her letter to Babington of July 17th Mary wrote;—“I shall at any time die most contented, understanding of your delivery forth of the servitude wherein you are holden as slaves.” (Cf, Document IX d. above).
page 92 note 1 The meaning of these seven notes may be gathered by a reference to “The Arguments in hir lettres after hir intelligence with Babington” on p. 88 above.
page 92 note 2 These eleven proofs of Mary's double dealing are set forth at large in Document XV.
page 93 note 1 This seems to be a reference to the Throgmorton plot, though the Throgmorton indicated here may be Thomas Throgmorton, the brother of Francis who was executed in 1584. Thomas fled to Paris in 1582 and there became one of the trusted friends of Mary.
page 93 note 2 It is somewhat curious to find no mention of Thomas Morgan in this list.