page 2 note * This was the law until 1696. It was then enacted by 7 and 8 William III. cap. 15, that the Parliament in being should continue to sit for six months after the death of any King or Queen, unless sooner prorogued or dissolved by the successor. The same provision was re-enacted by 6 Anne, cap. 41 of the authentic edition, or cap. 7 of the common editions. Vide authentic edition, vii. 84, and viii. 738.

page 3 note * Mary died at “her Manour of Saint James by Charing Cross,” (Stowe, 634) on Thursday, November the 17th, “about three or foure of the clocke in the morning.” (Holinshed, iv. 137.) Elizabeth, it will be perceived, was proclaimed, and her regnal years were subsequently reckoned from that same day. (Nicolas's Chron. of Hist. 319.)

page 3 note † “The same evening, or (as some have written), the next daie.” Holinshed, iv. 141.

page 5 note * Dated 27th December, 1558.

page 5 note † Our author has here partly anticipated a celebrated simile in Hudibras—

Dr. Grey, in his edition of Hudibras, i. 58, edit. 1806, refers to another instance of the use of the same simile in “Sir J. Birkenhead revived, p. 5.”

page 7 note * Mary also was short-sighted, so much so that she could not “read, or do any thing else, without placing her eyes quite close to the object.” Report of Michele the Venetian ambassador in 1557, quoted by Sir F. Madden in his Introd. to Mary's Privy Purae Expenses, p. clvi.

page 8 note * We have here a proof that Shakspeare's King John was written before 1612, the date of the present composition. It does not appear to have been printed until included in the first folio edition of the plays in 1623. The words referred to—

(King John, Act IV. scene 2), are not to be found in “the Troublesome Raigne of King John,” the play which Shakspeare used in the composition of his noble drama, and which some persons have thought to be Shakspeare's first rough draft, as it were, of the play which we now possess.

page 9 note * She occupied “the Lord North's House” in the Charter House. (Holinshed; iv. 156.) The same mansion which was afterwards the town residence of the Duke of Norfolk, beheaded in 1571. The dates of Elizabeth's movements at this period are very unsettled. According to Hayward, she removed from Hatfield to the Charter House on the 18th November. Holinshed dates the same removal on “the three-and-twentieth of November” (ibid.) ; and Stowe on the nineteenth (p. 635). A Letter, printed in the appendix to Strype's Annals i. No. ii., and since in Lodge's Illustrations (i. 301, edition 1791), determines in favour of the 23rd, the day mentioned by Holinshed. The Citizen's Journal, also, so much used by Strype (Cot. MS. Vitellius, F. v.), contains, at fol. 94 verso, the following entry—“The xxiij. day of November the Queen Elsabeth's grace toke here gorney from Hadley, beyond Barnett, toward London unto my Lord North's place.” The mention of this journal affords an opportunity, which I cannot let slip, of directing the attention of antiquaries to, the admirable manner in which it has been repaired, bound and illustrated, under the direction of Sir Frederick Madden. It is one proof, amongst many, of the zeal and efficiency with which that gentleman executes his office at the Museum.

page 10 note * Here again there is great discrepancy amongst the authorities as to the date of this removal. Hayward's date is the 19th November; Holinshed's the 28th ; Stowe does not give any date, but says that she stayed “many dayes” at the Charter House (p. 635).

page 10 note † Holinshed says that, “taking her chariot,” her grace “removed from my Lord North's House alongst Barbican, and entring by Cripplegate into the citie, kept along the wall to Bishopsgate, and so by Blanch Chapelton unto Mark Lane.” (iv. 156.)

page 11 note * “Essex,” in MS. fol. 114.

page 11 note † These councillors were Nicholas Heath, Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor, William Paulet, Marquis of Winchester and Lord Treasurer, Henry Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel, Francis Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, Edward Stanley, Earl of Derby, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, Edward Lord Clinton, Lord High Admiral, William Lord Howard of Effingham, Lord Chamberlain, Sir Thomas Cheyney, Sir William Petre, Sir John Mason, Sir Richard Sackville, and Dr. Nicholas Wotton. (Camden. Annal. p. 18, Edit. 1615). Sir Thomas Cheyney, one of the number, and Treasurer of the Household, survived his late mistress only until the 8th December : his liberality and many other excellent qualities are recorded in Holinshed, iv. 157.

page 13 note * The Seal was committed to Sir Nicholas, or rather to Nicholas Bacon, for he was not knighted until afterwards, on the 23rd December, 1558.

page 14 note * “The Three Cranes in the Vintry” was the name of a wharf set apart for the landing of wines, the cranes being the machines used for that purpose. Vide Pennant's London, p. 466, edit. 1813.

page 14 note † Vide the patent for his creation, Foedera, xv. 496. This nobleman, the brother of Queen Catharine Parr, was created Baron Parr of Kendal, and, afterwards, Earl of Essex, by Henry VIII. and in the 1st of Edward VI. was advanced to the title of Marquis of Northampton. He forfeited his honours in the 1st of Mary in consequence of his adherence to Lady Jane Grey, and was sentenced to death, but pardoned. The present creation restored him to the rank he held at the death of Edward VI.

page 15 note * This was the eldest son of the Protector Somerset, and the same nobleman who afterwards married Lady Catharine Grey. The present creation was, like the former, a restoration, although, unlike that, it was only an incomplete one.

page 15 note † Lord Thomas Howard was second son of Thomas Duke of Norfolk, who died in 1554, and younger brother of the Earl of Surrey. His patent of creation is in the Foedera, xv. 495.

page 15 note ‡ The reason for the grant of the peerage to this gentleman does not appear. He was a lawyer, and probably a zealous Protestant.

page 15 note § Henry Carey, not Carew, Lord Hunsdon, was the Queen's peer upon this creation. He was her cousin, being the only son of Mary Boleyn, her mother's sister. Catharine, his sister, the only other issue of Mary Boleyn married Sir Francis Knolles, a sincere Protestant, who was much trusted by Elizabeth, but never ennobled, although he received the order of the Garter. Some judicious observations upon the sparing way in which Elizabeth granted the honours of the state to her maternal relations will be found in the volume of Anecdotes and Traditions recently published by the Camden Society, p. 16.

page 16 note * i. e. the arches. A very full account of the whole of this interesting progress may be found in Holinshed, iv. 158–176, and another in Nichols's Progresses, vol. i.

page 17 note * “The ryght worshippfull Master Ranulph Cholmelie.” Holinshed, iv. 167. He died April 25th, 1563. Vide Collectanea Topog. et Geneal. iv. 102, 112.

page 18 note * Holinshed, whose Chronicle is about this period generally pretty accurate in dates, mistakes the day of Elizabeth's coronation. He makes it “Sundaie the five and twentith of Januarie,” (iv. 176) instead of “Sunday the fifteenth.” Fabyan states the day correctly (p. 722).

page 19 note * Burnet (Reform, ii. 494, edit. 1825) says, that the Bishops of Winchester, Lichfield, Chester, Carlisle, and Lincoln, and Doctors Cole, Harpsfleld, Langdale, and Chedsey were the disputants on the side of the Roman Catholics ; but it appears from the authorised account of the conference printed by the Queen's printer, and which is introduced into Stowe, p. 637, and is also printed in Burnet's Appendix, vol. ii. part ii. p. 411, that there were but eight divines on each side. The Bishop of Carlisle, on the side of the Roman Catholics, and Doctor Sands, on that of the Reformers, were present, but were not appointed to take part in the conference ; nor was the celebrated John Feckenham, at that time Abbot of Westminster, who was also present, and is stated in the report to have conducted himself with a very praiseworthy moderation.

page 24 note * Ultimately the Bishop of Lichfield was fined £338 6s. 8d.; the Bishop of Carlisle £250 ; the Bishop of Chester 200 marks ; Dr. Cole 500 marks; Dr. Harpsfield £4O; and Dr. Chedsey 40 marks. Strype's Annals, i. 95, edit. 1725.

page 26 note * By stat. 1 Eliz. cap. 2. Auth. edition, iv. 355.

page 26 note † By stat. 1 Eliz. cap. 4, and cap. 19. Auth. edition, iv. 359, and 381.

page 26 note ‡ By stat. 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Auth. edition, iv. 350.

page 27 note * All the Bishops then alive refused to take the oath of supremacy, except only Kitchen, Bishop of Llandaff—“sedis suæ calamitatem” (Camden. Annal. p. 36). All the lists of the deprived Bishops differ; the following, I believe, to be a correct one :—Heath, Archbishop of York (Fœd. xv. 599) ; Bonner, Bishop of London (ibid. 532); Thirleby, of Ely (ibid. 537); Pates, of Worcester (ibid. 549, 553); Watson, of Lincoln (ibid. 549); Goldwell, of St. Asaph (ibid. 551) ; White, of Winchester (ibid. 552) ; Bayne, of Lichfield and Coventry (ibid. 555) ; Morgan, of St. David's (ibid. 561) ; Bourne, of Bath and Wells (ibid.) ; Oglethorpe, of Carlisle (ibid. 577) ; Turbevil, of Exeter (ibid. 579); Tunstall, of Durham (ibid. 605) ; Poole, of Peterborough (ibid. 606). Although I refer to the Fœdera in proof of this list, the documents there published are not to be exclusively relied upon. The Bishoprick of Worcester, for instance, is stated to be vacant by deprivation, as was the fact, at p. 549, by death at p. 559, and again by deprivation at p. 553 ; and Hereford is said, at p. 551, to be vacant by death, and at p. 574 by deprivation.

page 28 note * By stat. 1 Eliz. cap. 24. Auth. edition, iv. 397.

page 28 note † Stat. 1 Eliz. cap. 1, sec 8. Auth. edition, iv. 352.

page 29 note * I believe the bawdriek, or baldrick, was generally passed round one side of the neck, and under the opposite arm ; but there is an instance in Fabyan of a bawdrick worn round the neck, as a collar, which was probably the case in the unsavoury example in the text. The passage in Fabyan stands thus—“Then Kyng Rycharde seyng the bounte of the Frenshe Kynge gaue to hym a bawderyke, or coler of golde, sette with greate dyaniantys, rubyes, and balessys, beynge valued at V.M. marke, the whiche for the preciosyte thereof, that it was of such an excellency and fynesse of stuffe, the Frenshe Kyng therefore ware it about his necke, as often as the Kynge and he mette together.” P. 540, edit 1811.

page 31 note * Sir Thomas Gargrave. (D'Ewes's Journal, p. 15.)

page 33 note * This instance of the use of the word “affront” in its original sense, “to stand front to front,” was derived by Hayward from Grafton's Chronicle, where the same passage occurs, vol. ii. p. 565, edit. 1809.

page 34 note * Not Elizabeth but Mary ; the negociations were renewed before her death, but the subsequent arrangement effected by Cavalcanti was with Elizabeth. Mary appointed the Earl of Arundel, the Bishop of Ely, and Dr. Wotton, as her commissioners, and their authority was renewed by Elizabeth on the 23rd November, 1558. (Forbes's State Papers, i. 1.)

page 35 note * The instructions given by the Sovereigns of France and England to Cavalcanti, together with many other interesting documents relating to this important transaction, will be found in Forbes's State Papers, i. 8–84. Cavalcanti was rewarded by Elizabeth with a pension of £100 per annum. (Fœd. xv, 567.)

page 35 note † The treaty between England and Scotland is printed in the Foedera, xv. 513. It bears date on the 2d day of April, 1559, the same day as the French treaty.

page 36 note * The treaty is printed in Rymer (Fœd. xv. 505), and also, more perfectly, in Forbes's State Papers, i. 68.

page 37 note * By stat. 1 Eliz. cap. 21. Auth. edition, iv. 384.

page 37 note † Cecil, writing to Sir Ralph Sadler and Sir James Croft, on the 20th October 1559, makes mention of this noble visitor in the following terms :—“Here is the Duke of Finland, who, on his brother's behalf, sheweth himself very politique to furder the suyte. He is very curteose and yet princely liberall, and yet in things necessary. Well spoken in the Latten tonge. How he shall spede God knoweth, and not I.” In the same letter, Cecil, after alluding to a rumour of a contemplated visit, with a view to a marriage, to be paid to Elizabeth by the Archduke of Austria, adds—'What maye come tyme will shortly shewe. I wold to God her Majesty had one, and the rest honorably satisfyed.”—(Sadler's State Papers, i. 507.)