No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
XIV. Charges made against Mary Stuart. 1586
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
Extract
This paper is written in two separate columns. The right hand column contains a list of charges against Mary; the left hand column, which is evidently incomplete, contains a statement of the proofs for some of the charges made. The former is written in a clerkly hand in the ordinary Gothic script of the Elizabethan period, the latter, probably by the same hand, in Italian script. There is an exact copy of this paper written in the same manner and by the same hand among the papers relating to Mary Stuart in the Record Office (Vol. viii, no. 54) which has been wrongly calendared in the Scottish Calendar under the year 1577. It is impossible to fix the date of this paper exactly, but it certainly belongs sometime after the execution of Dr. Parry (March 2, 1584/5) and before the trial of the Scottish Queen (October 1586). Very likely it has some connection with the proceedings against Mary in 1586 although the charges which it lodges against her do not seem to have been brought forward at her trial. It is somewhat surprising to find in it no reference whatsoever to the Throgmorton plot, Mary's complicity in which was well known to the English government.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1909
References
page 68 note 1 It would seem at first sight that this is a reference to a “Discourse” written by John Leslie, Bishop of Ross, which contains an account of his embassy in England from September 1568 to 26 March 1572, and which is printed in Anderson's Collections (vol. iii, p. 1). This “Discourse” however appears upon careful examination, to contain no such passage as the one referred to in the text. Probably Leslie wrote another, shorter “Discourse” in the form of an “Apology” for his dealings in the Norfolk plot. No complete copy of this appears to be in existence, but there is a paper in the English Record Office (cf. Cal. Scot, iv, p. 73) which contains some long extracts from it, one of which, is evidently the original of the passage cited here.
page 68 note 2 Cf. the examination of the Earl of Northumberland, June 20th, 1572. The questions asked the Earl are printed in Murdin (p. 219), his answers are preserved among the Cotton MSS. in the British Museum (cf. Cal. Scot, iv, p. 343).
page 68 note 3 Cf. the examinations of Thomas Bishop, May 10, 1570 (Cal. Hatfield MSS., i, p. 468) and May 5, 1572 (Murdin, pp. 214–216).Google Scholar
page 68 note 4 Cf. Oswald Wilkinson to the Privy Council, Oct. 1572 (Murdin, p. 225).Google Scholar
page 69 note 1 This examination of Ross is printed in Murdin (pp. 19–32).
page 69 note 2 Cf. p. 68 n. 1.
page 69 note 3 The Bishop of Ross left England late in the year 1573. After spending about a year in Paris he went to Rome where for some years he represented his mistress at the papal court. In 1578 he was sent by the Pope to visit certain Catholic princes in Germany in Mary's interests. In the little Protestant principality of Lützelstein, on the eastern border of Lorraine, he was arrested upon the supposition that he was Cardinal Rossano, the papal legate, and his papers seized. Dr. Rogers, an English agent in Germany, tried in vain to get copies of these papers for Elizabeth (Cal. Foreign Eliz. 1578–9, pp. 393, 420). Finally in February 1582/3 the Prince of Lützelstein himself sent copies of them to England by an agent of his named Haller (cf. Walsingham to Bowes, 20 Feb. 1582/3, R.O., S.P. Scotland, xxxi, No. 36). These copies seem to have disappeared, but extracts from them will be found calendared under the year 1578 in the Calendar of Scottish Papers (vol. v, p. 327).
page 70 note 1 Cf. Cal. Scot. Papers, v, p. 15. The instructions which Mary gave to Hamilton in sending him to Alva are preserved in the Archives at Brussels and have been printed by Labanoff (vol. iii, p. 215).
page 70 note 2 Cf. Labanoff, , vol. v, p. 3.Google Scholar
page 71 note 1 Cf. p. 69 n. 1. The reference to John Hamilton will be found on page 24 of Murdin.
page 72 note 1 Mary's letters referred to here, I have not been able to identify.
page 72 note 2 Reference is made here to “A Discourse Conteyning a perfect Accompte given to the most virtuous and excellent Princess Mary, Queen of Scots and her Nobility by John, Bishope of Rosse, Ambassador for her Highness towards the Queen of England, of his whole Charge and Proceedings during the Time of his Ambassade etc. etc. Sept. 1568 to the 26th of March 1572.” (Printed by Anderson, iii, p. 1). This account does not seem to have been printed by the bishop but several copies of it exist in manuscript. A copy of the second part of it (April n, 1571 to March 26, 1572) in the Calthorpe MSS. (cf. Hist. MSS. Comm. 2nd Report, App. p. 41) bears an endorsement by Robert Beale to the effect that it was found in the study of Lord Henry Howard, when he was apprehended after the departure of Lord Paget and Chas. Arundel. This was in November 1583 (cf. Cal. Domestic, 1580–90, p. 129). In such wise the book seems to have come into the hands of the government. The references to it here will be found in Anderson, iii, pp. 150, 154–6.
page 73 note 1 This charge against Mary is manifestly unjust. Whether Morgan was concerned in Parry's treasons or not, he certainly denied the charge strenuously in his secret letters to her and she chose to accept the word of her servant rather than the word of her enemies.