[218] There is an enigmatical entry in Cecil’s journal at this period, August 1565, saying, “The Queene’s Majestie seemed to be much offended with the Earle of Leicester, and so she wrote an obscure sentence in a book at Windsor.” Strype, who has been followed by most other historians, thought that this referred to Leicester’s opposition to the Archduke’s suit. The real reason for the Queen’s squabble with Leicester is given by Guzman (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.). August 27: “I wrote to your Majesty that the Queen was showing favour to one Heneage, who serves in her chamber. Lord Robert and he have had words, and as a consequence Robert spoke to the Queen about it. She was apparently much annoyed at the conversation.… Heneage at once left the court, and Robert did not see the Queen for three days, until she sent for him. They say now that Heneage will come back at the instance of Lord Robert, to avoid gossip.”

[219] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.

[220] Harl. MSS., 6990.

[221] Randolph to Cecil, 3rd June. Harl. MSS., 4645.

[222] Spanish Calendar, Elizabeth, vol. i.

[223] The action of the French representatives was extremely perplexing. On the one hand, they offered help to Elizabeth against Scotland, and urged Mary to make terms with Murray; whilst on the other, they continued to intercede with Elizabeth for Lady Margaret and Mary, and conveyed the kindest messages to the Queen and Darnley. (See Randolph’s letters.)

[224] Yaxley was sent back from Madrid with glowing promises and encouragement from Philip to Mary and Darnley, and 20,000 crowns in money. The ship, however, in which he sailed from Flanders was wrecked, and Yaxley’s lifeless body was washed up on the coast of Northumberland, with the money and despatches attached to it. The money, of course, never reached Mary, but formed the subject of a long squabble as to the respective claims for it, of the Crown and the Earl of Northumberland. (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.).

[225] State Papers, Scotland.

[226] Randolph’s letter, 6th February 1566, gives particulars of Mary’s adhesion to the League of Bayonne (Harl. MSS. 4645); but she does not appear actually to have signed the “bond” sent to her, as she was urged to do by the Bishop of Dunblane and other papal emissaries. There is not the slightest doubt, however, that she looked at this time to the Catholic league alone for help in her claims, and had decided to defy England and the Protestant party.

[227] Randolph to Cecil, 1st March; and Randolph and Bedford to Cecil, 6th March (Scottish State Papers).

[228] Randolph wrote to Leicester on the 13th February 1566, telling him of a plot to kill Rizzio, and probably the Queen, in order that Lennox and his son Darnley might seize the crown. He says he thinks it better not to tell Cecil, but to keep the secret between the writer and Leicester. On the 1st March, Randolph sent to Cecil copies of the two “Conventions,” signed by the Earls—namely, that of Darnley, Morton, and Ruthven, to kill Rizzio; and that of Murray, Argyll, Rothes, &c., to uphold Darnley in all his quarrels. Bedford, writing to Cecil on the 6th March, begged him earnestly to keep the whole matter secret, except from Leicester and the Queen. It will thus be seen that, far from being a promoter of the Darnley plot to kill Rizzio, Cecil did not know of it in time to stop its perpetration, if he had been inclined to do so, as the murder was committed on the 9th March. Against this, however, must be placed, for what it is worth, Guzman’s statement that Cecil had told Lady Margaret of Rizzio’s murder as having taken place the day before it really occurred.

[229] From a statement of Guzman (28th January 1566) it would appear that Cecil, probably in union with Murray, had some idea of bringing Darnley round to the English interest. The Queen (Elizabeth), he says, had refused Rambouillet’s suggestion that when he arrived in Scotland he might bring about a reconciliation between the two Queens. “Afterwards, however, Cecil went to his (Rambouillet’s) lodgings, and told him that when the King of Scotland, bearing in mind that he had been an English subject, should write modestly to the Queen, saying that he was sorry for her anger, and greatly wished that it should disappear, he (Cecil) believed that everything would be settled, if at the same time the Queen of Scotland would send an Ambassador hither to treat of Lady Margaret’s affairs” (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.).

[230] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.

[231] Only two days before this Guzman gave the same advice to Elizabeth. Both she and Cecil then assured him of their desire for such a settlement, which would have checked French designs in Scotland, and disarmed Spain.

[232] We do not often hear of Lady Cecil’s action in politics, but on this occasion she seems to have seconded her husband. Guzman writes (22nd April 1566): “Cecil’s wife tells me that the French Ambassador says that if the Archduke comes hither, he will cause discord in the country, as he will endeavour to uphold his religion, and will have many to follow him. She thinks the Queen will never marry Lord Robert, or, indeed, any one else, unless it be the Archduke, which is the match Cecil desires. Certainly, if any one has information on the matter, it is Cecil’s wife, as she is clever and greatly influences him.”

A few days after the above was written, Guzman visited Cecil, who was ill, and mentioned how annoyed the French were when they saw the Archduke’s suit prospering. “They then at once bring forward their own King to embarrass the Queen. When this trick has hindered the negotiations, they take up with Leicester again, and think we do not see through them.” “Yes,” replied Cecil, “they are very full of fine words and promises, as usual, and they think when they have Lord Robert on their side their business is as good as done, but their great object is to embroil the Emperor with the King of Spain.” (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.)

[233] When news came of Brederode’s “protest” in the Netherlands and the rising of the “beggars,” Guzman tried hard to discover from Cecil whether any connection existed between the rebels and the English. He concluded that there was none, although the eastern counties’ ports were full already of Flemish Protestant fugitives. The Queen was very emphatic in her condemnation of the “beggars” at first. “Fine Christianity, she said, was this, which led subjects to defy their sovereign. It had begun in Germany and in France, and then extended to Scotland, and now to Flanders, and perhaps some day will happen here, as things are going now. Some rogues, she said, even wanted to make out that she knew something about the affairs in Flanders. Only let me get them into my hands, she exclaimed, and I will soon make them understand the interest I feel in all that concerns my brother, the King” (i.e. Philip). (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.)

[234] See the letters of Cecil’s spy, Ruxby (or Rooksby), in extenso in Haynes. This man had fled from England to Scotland for debt. He was known to Cecil, who, when he heard that he was dealing with Mary Stuart in Edinburgh, warned him. Ruxby then offered his services as a spy, and sent Cecil very compromising information about Mary’s plans. Melvil discovered this, and Ruxby was seized by the Scots and put in prison, Killigrew’s attempts, at the instance of Cecil, to convey him to England as an escaped recusant, being thus frustrated. (Hatfield Papers.)

[235] He started from Edinburgh a few hours after James’s birth, and reached London in four days (Melvil Memoirs).

[236] Melvil Memoirs.

[237] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i. On the 20th July, Cecil writes to Lord Cobham, “I trust I shall not be troubled with the Scottish journey” (Hatfield Papers).

[238] Nichol’s “Progresses of Queen Elizabeth.”

[239] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.

[240] Although Cecil was a member of the Commons deputation, he was, of course, known to be against the measure, and escaped the Queen’s vituperation. Cecil himself in his notes thus refers to the matter: “1566. October 17. Certen Lords, viz., Erle of Pembroke and Lecester, wer excluded the presence-chamber, for furdering the proposition of the succession to be declared in Parliament without the Queen’s allowance.”

[241] The Parliament was dissolved on 2nd January 1567. The principal measure adopted in it was that which gave Parliamentary confirmation to the consecration of the bishops and archbishops, in order to counteract the attacks promoted by Bonner against the Protestant consecration. The measure was principally urged by the bishops themselves, and in the Lords was carried to a great extent by their votes, there being twenty-eight bishops present, and thirty-two lay peers. The House of Commons was strongly Protestant, and was dissolved instead of being prorogued, as was expected. Although the measure referred to was passed, the Government refrained from proceeding further against the Catholic bishops who had refused the oath of supremacy. (See Strype’s “Annals,” &c.)

[242] Scrinia Ceciliana.

[243] Spanish State Papers: Guzman to Philip, 1st March.

[244] Scrinia Ceciliana.

[245] These letters will be found in Labanoff, vol. ii.

[246] Catharine de Medici’s attitude when she heard the news was characteristic. She thus wrote to Montmorenci: “Gossip: my son the King is sending you this courier to give you the news he has received from Scotland. You see that the young fool (Darnley) has not been King very long. If he had been wiser he would have been alive still. It is a great piece of luck for the Queen, my daughter, to be rid of him.” (MSS. Bibliothèque Nationale, Bethune.)

[247] Drury to Cecil, April 1567 (State Papers, Scotland).

[248] Scrinia Ceciliana.

[249] Scrinia Ceciliana.

[250] Again, on the 3rd September, Cecil writes to Norris: “The Queen’s Majesty, our sovereign, remaineth still offended with the Lords (of Scotland) for the Queen: the example moveth her.” Later in the month (27th September) a French envoy came through England on a mission to Scotland, and proposed to Elizabeth that joint action should be taken to secure Mary’s liberation. The envoy was persuaded in London to refrain from continuing his journey, and we see that Cecil’s feeling in favour of the Protestant party was gradually gaining ground in Elizabeth’s counsels. He writes: “Surely if either the French King or the (English) Queen should appear to make any force against them of Scotland for the Queen (of Scots’) cause, we find it credible that it were the next way to make an end of her; and for that cause her Majesty is loth to take that way.” As an instance of the divergence of the Queen and Cecil during the summer, Guzman, detailing a private conversation he had with the Queen in July, during which he warned her again against French interference in Scotland, writes: “Certain things passed in the conversation which she begged me not to communicate even to Cecil.”

[251] Scrinia Ceciliana.

[252] The object of the French was to retain their alliance with Scotland in any case, which, indeed, was their great safeguard against England and Spain. De Croc was sent as Ambassador in 1566 for this especial purpose. Villeroy and Lignerolles were subsequently despatched respectively to conciliate Murray and Bothwell. When Murray assumed the Regency, the French were just as anxious to recognise him as they had been to welcome other régimes, and Charles IX. himself assured Murray of his continued friendship. (See letters and instructions in Chéruel.)

[253] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.

[254] Cecil writes to Lord Cobham (27th May): “Lady Clinton hath procured my wife to make a supper to-morrow, where a greater person will covertly be, as she is wont. The Queen hath made asseverations to persuade the Duke (of Norfolk) of her effectual dealing to marry, and to deal plainly in this embassy” (Hatfield Papers). The object of the supper was to enable the Queen privately to meet the Emperor’s Ambassadors before their public reception. She seems to have been much disappointed that they had nothing to say about the marriage, and as a result decided at last to send the Earl of Sussex to the Emperor.

[255] Guzman expressed his disbelief in any such intelligence having been received, whereupon Cecil showed him the paper. The document had reached Cecil in German from one of his agents, and is still in the Burghley Papers. Guzman pointed out to Cecil the undiplomatic form in which the articles of the alleged treaty were drawn up and their inherent improbability, which Cecil admitted. The particulars are now known to have been a fabrication, although the main object of the league was unquestionably to suppress Protestantism by extermination.

[256] The answer, which Guzman calls a very impertinent one, will be found in State Papers, Foreign, June 1567, and the original draft, in Cecil’s hand, at Hatfield.

[257] Guzman writes (5th July): “Everything that can be done to arouse the suspicion of the Queen against your Majesty is being done by certain people, and I am trying all I can to banish such feeling and keep her in a good humour, without saying anything offensive of the King of France … I think I have satisfied and tranquillised her; although when they see your Majesty so strongly armed, suspicion is aroused, and not here alone.” On the 21st July, he says, “With all the demonstrations of friendship and the friendly offers I make to the Queen from your Majesty, I find her rather anxious about the coming of the Duke of Alba to Flanders.”

[258] Murray very closely describes the contents of the “first” casket letter, of which so much has been written. The arguments of Mary’s defenders, founded on the long delay in the production of the letters, therefore fall to the ground, as Murray had evidently seen a copy, or the originals, before the end of July. To those who accuse Murray himself of having caused the letters to be forged, it may be replied that, on the 12th July, De Croc, on his way from Scotland to France, mentioned to Guzman in London the existence of the letters. As Dalgleish, with the letters, was captured in Edinburgh on the 20th June, there was no time in the interval for Morton in Scotland and Murray in Lyons to have concocted an elaborate forgery such as this. Murray, at all events, must be acquitted, as De Croc, leaving Scotland at the end of June, had copies of the letters in his possession.

[259] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.

[260] How wavering Elizabeth’s policy was at the time, according as Leicester or Cecil was near her, may clearly be seen. By Throgmorton’s instructions of 30th June (State Papers, Scotland; in extenso in Keith), it is evident that his mission was to blame both Mary and the Lords, making Elizabeth the arbiter between them, and to negotiate the restoration of Mary to liberty, but without political power. The Lords would not allow this, and Throgmorton failed. On the other hand, Melvil was sent back to Scotland shortly before Throgmorton, taking a message from Elizabeth to the Lords, in reply to their secret intimation that they intended to depose Mary, and a promise to the effect that she would aid them “in their honourable enterprise” (Melvil to Cecil, 1st July—State Papers, Scotland; in extenso in Tytler).

[261] Guzman to Philip, August 9, 1567, Spanish State Papers. Guzman at this time had a conversation with a French envoy, Lignerolles, who was returning from Scotland. He told him that Leicester’s henchman Throgmorton, on his embassy to Scotland, had acted earnestly and vigorously in favour of Mary. “Which,” writes Guzman, “I quite believe, as he has always been attached to her. He is also a great friend of Lord Robert’s, and an enemy of Cecil, whom the Queen does not consider to be in favour of the Queen of Scots, but a partisan of Catharine” (Grey).

[262] “Her Majesty much dislikes of the Prince of Condé and the French Lords. The (English) Council do all they can to cover the same. Her Majesty, being a Prince herself, is doubtful to give comfort to subjects. You (Norris), nevertheless, shall do well to comfort them as occasion shall serve” (Scrinia Ceciliana). The day before this was written, Guzman writes to Philip, speaking of the suspicion that exists that the Queen is helping the Huguenots, of which, however, he cannot find any confirmation: “But still I notice that when news comes favourable to the heretics, these Councillors are more pleased than otherwise, whilst they grieve if the heretics fail” (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth).

[263] Guzman’s comment upon this is curious: “These heretics are so blind as to marvel why your Majesty does not allow full liberty to all in your dominions to enjoy their own opinions and schisms against the Catholic religion, and yet they themselves refuse to let people live freely in the ancient religion which for so many years they have followed without molestation.”

[264] This second “plough” was probably an arrangement to subsidise Murray to send a privateer naval force to intercept some of Philip’s vessels conveying a number of Flemish nobles to Spain, amongst others Count de Buren, the young son of the Prince of Orange.

[265] Dr. Allen had recently established the English seminary at Douai, and a Dr. Wilson was apprehended in March 1568 for collecting money from English Catholics for the seminary at Louvain. Cecil himself, in his essay on the “Execution of Justice,” mentions the large number of papal emissaries in England at this time. Thomas Heath, brother of the Archbishop, and Faithful Cummin, a Dominican monk, were both arrested during this spring for carrying on a Catholic propaganda under the guise of Puritan Nonconformists. (See Strype’s Parker, &c.).

[266] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.

[267] He was said to have called the Pope a “canting little monk.” Amongst those who testified against him was Gresham’s agent Huggins, who afterwards became one of Cecil’s spies in Spain, and betrayed both sides.

[268] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. ii.

[269] Drury to Cecil, 28th November 1567 (State Papers, Scotland).

[270] In Labanoff, vol. ii. Copy in Hatfield Papers, part i., and Haynes.

[271] Scrinia Ceciliana.

[272] It is possible that these jewels may be those referred to in a memorandum at Hatfield, of the date 17th May, in Cecil’s writing, as having been bought from one Felton.

[273] Drury to Cecil, 15th May, describing Langside (Cotton MSS., Caligula, c. i.)., &c.

[274] Mary to Elizabeth (ibid.).

[275] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.

[276] Cotton MSS., Caligula, c. i.

[277] See Cecil’s letters to Norris of this period, detailing the discussions which this gave rise to in the Council. Cecil’s whole efforts were directed against preventing French troops being sent to Scotland at any cost. In Cecil’s own memoranda (Harl. MSS., 4653), when Mary first entered England, this is the main point dwelt upon. No person was to see Mary without permission of the English guard, all the known accomplices of Darnley’s murder were to be arrested, all interference of the French was to be prevented, and if it was decided to restore Mary, it was only to be on conditions which insured the exclusion of the French. The summing up of the document consists of a statement of the dangers that would ensue to England if Mary were to be allowed to return to France, or if, on the other hand, she remained in England. At this time Cecil was in favour of Mary’s restoration under the strict tutelage of England.

[278] See letters 21st June, &c., Hatfield Papers (in extenso in Haynes), and 13th June and 5th July, Cotton MSS., Caligula, c. i.

[279] See Cecil’s report and recommendations, Harl. MSS., 4653.

[280] A journal of the proceedings made by the English president, the Duke of Norfolk, is at Hatfield, part i. (No. 1200), and many letters on the subject in extenso in Haynes. In November the sittings were transferred to Westminster. On the 30th October a Council was held at Hampton Court, at which the “casket letters” were considered, and it was decided that Mary’s representatives, the Bishop of Ross and Lord Herries, should first have audience of Elizabeth. They were to be so questioned as to “move them to confess their general authority to answer all charges.” The representatives of the Lords, Maitland and MacGill, were then to be introduced and asked what answer they could give to Mary’s accusations, and why, in face of the letters they produced, they refrained from charging the Queen openly with murder. It was decided in the Council to remove Mary from Bolton to Tutbury. (See Minutes in Cecil’s hand, Hatfield Papers, part i. 1203-1205; in extenso in Haynes.)

[281] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.

[282] Odet de Coligny, brother of the Admiral of France.

[283] Hatfield State Papers, 18th September 1568.

[284] 28th October (Scrinia Ceciliana).

[285] Hatfield Papers, part i. 1237.

[286] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.

[287] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. ii.

[288] Hatfield Papers, part i. No. 1243.

[289] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.

[290] Spinola had been concerned in John Hawkins’ ventures, and it has usually been assumed that he had already received from his correspondents in Spain news of the attack on Hawkins’ fleet at St. Juan de Ulloa two months before. It is asserted that the seizure of the treasure was urged upon Cecil as a reprisal for this. I am of opinion that such was not the case, as the seizure of the money was under consideration before it was possible for the affair of St. Juan de Ulloa to be known.

[291] The safe conduct for the money sent to the ports by De Spes was closely followed by contrary orders from the Council to Sir William Horsey at Southampton, and Champernoun at Plymouth, and the treasure was landed in accordance therewith. On the 13th December, William Hawkins wrote to Cecil from Plymouth with rumours of the attack on John Hawkins at St. Juan de Ulloa, but the seizure must have been decided upon before Cecil received the letter.

[292] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.

[293] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.

[294] The seizure of Spanish property had greatly alarmed the English merchants and bankers, and was the pretext seized upon by Cecil’s enemies to ruin him.

[295] Desiderata Curiosa.

[296] Fuller’s “Holy State.”

[297] How moderate and cautious Cecil was in his triumph, after he had discovered and apprised the Queen of the plot to ruin him, and had barely escaped the dagger of the hired assassin who was to kill him, is seen in his subsequent demeanour towards the conspirators. Instead of trying to disgrace or punish them, he continued to work loyally with them. The real prime mover in the plot was Leicester, with whom outwardly Cecil was always friendly. Cecil, writing to a friend at the time, thus expresses himself: “I am in quietness of mind, as feeling the nearness and readiness of God’s favour to assist me with His grace, to have a disposition to serve Him before the world; and therein have I lately proved His mere goodness to preserve me from some clouds or mists, in the midst whereof I trust mine honest actions are proved to have been lightsome and clear. And to make this rule more proper, I find the Queen’s Majesty, my gracious lady, without change of her old good meaning towards me, and so I trust by God’s goodness to observe a continuance. I also am moved to believe that all my Lords, from the greatest to the meanest, think my actions honest and painful, and do profess inwardly to bear me as much good-will as ever they did.” That this was the case, at least with one of the conspirators, is proved by the fact that Lord Pembroke, who died at the end of the year, left Cecil one of his executors, jointly with Leicester and Throgmorton.

[298] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.

[299] Although in all her letters Mary designates Cecil as her enemy, she could, when not carried away by anger, perceive his good qualities. In February 1569 she was removed to Tutbury, and was extremely angry and alarmed at this. In conversation with Henry Knollys, who repeated the conversation to a correspondent of Cecil’s (Hatfield Papers, part i. 1279), “she spared not to give forth that the Secretary was her enemy, and that she mistrusted by this removing he would cause her to be made away.” But when her passion was over, she said that though the Secretary were not her friend, he was an expert, wise man, wishing it might be her luck to get the friendship of so wise a man.

[300] Hatfield Papers; in extenso in Haynes.

[301] Denied afterwards by Norfolk, but confirmed by Melvil. (See State Trials, and Melvil’s Memoirs).

[302] The Bishop of Ross deposed afterwards that Norfolk was so much exasperated at Murray’s having finally brought forward the whole of the evidence to convict Mary of murder, that he formed a plot for his assassination. Melvil says, however, that before Murray returned to Scotland, Throgmorton had fully gained his acquiescence in the projected marriage, and had reconciled the Regent and the Duke.

[303] Alba was very angry with De Spes for the way in which he was compromising Spain. He wrote again to him in July, saying that he “was informed from France that the Queen of Scotland was being utterly ruined by the plotting of her servants with you, as they never enter your house without being watched. This might cost the Queen her life, and I am not sure that yours would be safe.” The evidence given afterwards at the Duke of Norfolk’s trial, and the examinations of Bailly and the Bishop of Ross, proved that Cecil had information of everything that occurred.

[304] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth. Alba, writing to Philip soon afterwards (8th August), says, “I have written several times to Don Gerau, telling him to suspend negotiations, as I plainly see they are tricking him, so as to get all they can from him, and then say they have negotiated without authority. He is zealous … but he is inexperienced; he allows himself to be led away, and is ruining the negotiation.” It will be seen that it was comparatively easy for Cecil to outwit such an instrument as this.

[305] Mary consented to the condition; and the whole arrangement was, according to Norfolk and the Bishop of Ross, acquiesced in by Leicester and the majority of the Council. How far sincere Mary was in accepting the condition, may be seen by her message to De Spes. “She says if she were at liberty, or could get such help as would enable her to bring her country to submission, she would deliver herself and her son entirely into your Majesty’s hands, but now she will be obliged to sail with the wind” (De Spes to Philip, 27th August). This, no doubt, referred to her having consented to the marriage with Norfolk, and to the proposals submitted by the English Government to Murray and the Parliament of Perth for Mary’s return to Scotland. Murray was opposed to his sister’s return in any form, and neither of the Queen’s propositions, nor Mary’s petition for a divorce from Bothwell, was granted. That Cecil was at this time (the spring and summer of 1569) desirous of getting rid of Mary from England, without allowing her to go to France, where the Catholics had just beaten the Huguenots, is certain, and also that he did not wish her to be ill used in Scotland. See his minute sent to Murray by Henry Carey, demanding to know what hostages would be given for her safety if she was returned. (Hatfield Papers, Haynes; also Strype’s Annals, and Rapin.)

[306] Harl. MSS., 6353.

[307] Scrinia Ceciliana, 3rd October.

[308] In a postscript to a letter from the Earl of Huntingdon to Cecil from Coventry, where he was in joint charge of Mary Stuart, 9th December 1569, he mentions “the speech that passeth amongst many, how earnest a dealer you were for this marriage for which the Duke and others do suffer her Majesty’s displeasure: yea, it is reported from the mouth of some of the sufferers that, in persuasion, you (Cecil) yielded such reasons for it as he (the Duke), by them, was most moved to consent.” Cecil can hardly have been so forward in the matter as is here suggested, or it surely would have been mentioned in the rigorous examinations of those implicated. (Hatfield Papers, part i.)

[309] De Spes went so far as to say that it was Cecil who was urging that Norfolk should be sent to the Tower—the very reverse, as we now know, being the case. Cecil afterwards thought it worth while to defend himself against this charge in a note of his still existing in the Cotton MSS. It runs: “Whoso sayeth that I have in any wise directly or indirectly hindered or altered her Majesty’s disposition in the delivery of the Duke of Norfolk out of the Tower, I do affirm the same is untrue, and he that sayeth so doth speak an untruth. If any man will affirm the same to be true against this, my assertion, the same doth therein maintain an untruth and a lye. W. Cecil, xii. Julii, 1570.”