^{page xiv note 1} I conceive Document XVIII printed on page 82 seq. to be Hattons's notes for this speech.

^{page xiv note 2} Cf. Document I, p. 1.

^{page xviii note 1} Cf. Document III, p. 9.

^{page xviii note 2} Cf. Document IV, p. 12.

^{page xx note 1} Cf. Document IV, p. 15, n. 2.

^{page xx note 2} A whole library of books has been written upon this subject one way or the other. Mary's latest defender, Mr. Andrew Lang (The Mystery of Mary Stuart) has been well answered by Mr. T.E. Henderson in his recent biography of Mary Stuart (cf. particularly Vol. II., Appendix A.).

^{page xxiii note 1} Cal. Spanish Papers, 1568–1579, p. 97.

^{page xxiv note 1} Henderson, Mary Stuart, Vol. II, p. 527.

^{page xxiv note 2} There is abundant proof of this in the Correspondence of the Spanish ambassador. Cf. Cal. Spanish Papers 1568–79, p. 198, et al.

^{page xxv note 1} The inner history of this conspiracy can best be studied in the Correspondence of the Spanish ambassador. (Cal. Spanish Papers 1568–79, passim.) Mary's instructions to Robert Ridolfi, the Italian merchant, who was sent abroad to solicit the aid of the king of Spain and the Pope, are printed in Labanoff, Lettres de Marie Stuart, iii, pp. 221–52.

^{page xxv note 2} Through the kindness of Mr. John Murray I have had sight of an interesting letter in his private collection written by Mary in her own hand to La Mothe Fénélon, the French ambassador in London, on the 8th of September, 1571. In this letter Mary denies absolutely that she had ever sought to stir up rebellion in England or that Ridolfi ever had any commission from her to solicit aid abroad. A fair idea of her regard for the truth may be gathered by a comparison of this letter with her letter of instructions to Ridolfi printed by Labanoff.

^{page xxvi note 1} Cf. Document I, p. 4, n. 1.

^{page xxvi note 2} Cal. Foreign Papers 1572–4, p. 93.

^{page xxvi note 3} Cf. Appendix I, p. 113.

^{page xxvi note 4} Cf. Document II, p. 5.

^{page xxvi note 5} The Bishop of London expressed this view in a terse and vigorous letter to Lord Burghley which is printed in Wright, Queen Elizabeth, i, 438.

^{page xxvii note 1} An excellent short account of them will be found in Kretschmar, Invasions-projeckte der katholischen Mächte gegen England (Leipsig, 1902).

^{page xxviii note 1} Don John had discussed this project with Philip II in Spain and had received secret instructions from him as to the proper course of proceedure. These instructions are printed in Kervyn de Lettenhove, Relations politiques des Pays-Bas et de l'Angleterre, ix, p. 15.

^{page xxviii note 2} Cf. Mary to the Archbishop of Glasgow, 18 March 1577, in Labanoff, iv, 363.Google Scholar

^{page xxviii note 3} Cf. Mary to Glasgow, cited above.

^{page xxix note 1} Father J.H. Pollen has published an excellent short account of these Irish expeditions in The Month for January, 1903.

^{page xxxi note 1} Kretschmar's account of the projects against England which centred around the figure of d'Aubigny is excellent. T. F. Knox in his introduction to the “Letters and Memorials of Cardinal Allen” has revealed the important part which the English Jesuits played in these projects.

^{page xxxii note 1} Father Pollen has set forth the details of this assassination plot in an article on Mary Stuart published in The Month for September 1907.

^{page xxxii note 2} The instructions given by the duke of Guise to Paget are printed in Cal. Spanish Papers, 1580–86, pp. 506.

^{page xxxii note 3} One of Walsingham's secret agents who called himself Henri Fagot had been set to spy upon the French ambassador at London. In April 1583, Fagot wrote to Walsingham in very bad French, “La grande fauteurs de la royne d'escosse est le Sieur Frocquemorton et le milord Henry Howard et ils ne vienent jamais raporte chose d'icelle que la nuict. ”This letter is in the English Record Office (S.P. Mary, Q. of S. xx, no. 61). It was written six months before Throgmorton's apprehension.

^{page xxxii note 4} Walsingham wrote to Thomas Wilkes who was assisting in Throgmorton's examination, on the 18th of November, 1583, “I have seen as resolute men as Throgmorton stoop, notwithstanding the great show he hath made of Roman resolution. I suppose the grief of the last torture will suffice, without any extremity of racking, to make him more conformable than he hath hitherto shown himself.” (Record Office. S.P. Domestic clxiii, no. 65.) The next day Throgmorton confessed.

^{page xxxiii note 1} Cf. among others, Mary's letter to Glasgow of September 10th, 1582 in which she reveals her knowledge of the schemes of d'Aubigny (Labanoff, v, p. 308) and her letter to the French ambassador of the 26th of February 1583/4 in which she bids him assure Throgmorton that she will never forget his great suffering in her cause (Labanoff, v, p. 424), both of which fell into Walsingham's hands.

^{page xxxiii note 2} This was George Douglas. He was primarily the agent of d'Aubigny but he was of service to Mary as well. His confession is preserved in the Record Office (S.P. Scotland, xxx, no. 38).

^{page xxxiii note 3} Cf. the official narrative of the Throgmorton conspiracy printed in the Harleian Miscellany, Vol. iii (1808).

^{page xxxiv note 1} Cf. Walsingham to Burghley, 16 November 1582, in the British Museum (Caligula, C. vii. f. 72).

^{page xxxiv note 2} Hatton's arguments are printed below (Document VII p. 21). Walsingham's will be found written out in his own hand in the Record Office (S.P. Mary Q. of S. xi, n. 74). Cf. also Walsingham's letter to Robert Bowes, of June 12th, 1583, in the British Museum (Caligula, C. vii, f. 209).

^{page xxxiv note 3} Cf. Document V (a), p. 17.

^{page xxxv note 1} In Sergeant Puckering's brief of the case against Mary Stuart (Document XII p. 53) it will be observed that he charges her with complicity in the Throgmorton Plot. It is however somewhat curious to find that neither Puckering nor Hatton make any mention of her share in d'Aubigny's schemes although it must have been well known to Hatton at least.

^{page xxxv note 2} Upon Walsingham's attitude towards Shrewsbury cf. Cal. Spanish Papers-1580–86, p. 301. Shrewsbury's desire to relinquish his charge arose in large measure from private difficulties with his wife and from scandals which had been circulated about his personal relations with his prisoner (Henderson, II, p. 583).Google Scholar

^{page xxxv note 3} Cf. Document XXI, p. 97.

^{page xxxvi note 1} Cf. the life of Parry in the Dict. National Biography (first edition) xliii, 387 and Father Pollen's account of the Parry Plot in The Month for April, 1907.

^{page xxxvii note 1} This is one of the charges urged against Mary in Document XIV (p. 73).

^{page xxxvii note 2} Cf. J. Morris. The Letter-Books of Sir Amias Poulet, p. 9.

^{page xxxviii note 1} The most accurate account of this arrangement is given by Morris, op. cit.

^{page xxxviii note 2} Puckering's notes (Document XII, p. 53) present with accuracy the case for the government.

^{page xxxviii note 3} These letters are all printed below, Document IX, p. 26 seq.

^{page xxxix note 1} This point is discussed in Appendix III.

^{page xxxix note 2} Cf. the last sentence of Mary's letter to Babington of July 17th, printed below p. 40.

^{page xxxix note 3} Morris, , p. 284.Google Scholar

^{page xxxix note 4} Hardwicke State Papers, i, p. 237.

^{page xl note 1} Cf. Document X (a) p. 42.

^{page xlii note 1} This is apparent from Burghley's letter to Walsingham of the 27th of September 1586, which is on exhibition in the Museum at the English Record Office.

^{page xliii note 1} Cf. Documents XXII, XXIV, pp. 99, 103.