Cecil Papers: July-September 1571 | British History Online

Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House: Volume 1, 1306-1571. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1883.

'Cecil Papers: July-September 1571', in Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House: Volume 1, 1306-1571, (London, 1883) pp. 507-531. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-cecil-papers/vol1/pp507-531 [accessed 11 April 2024]

July–September 1571



	1574. Articles for Sir T. Gerrard.
1571, July 2.	Interrogatories for Sir Thomas Gerrard, based on the greater portion of the foregoing confession by Hall.
	Draft, in the hand of Lord Burghley, Endorsed:—“2 Julii 1571. John Hall—Sir Thos. Gerrard.”
	1 p.
	1575.—to the Duchess of Feria.
1571, July 3.	Inveighs against William Sutton, as having, by his spying abroad occasioned the arrest of the Bishop of Ross, and the accusation of many others. Learns for certain, out of England, that the treaty of marriage with France covers a horrible confederacy against the Spanish King.—Mechlin, 3 July.
	Endorsed by Lord Burghley:—“3 July 1571. Contra Sutton. The marriage of the Queen with Monsr. d'Anjou.”
	¾ p. [Murdin, p. 182. In extenso.]
	1576. Sir Thomas Stanley to the Privy Council.
1571, July 15.	Asks their Lordships' pardon for that, when asked about the previous Christmas by some of them, he did not so plainly answer as in duty he should have done. Acknowledges that he has offended Her Majesty in dealing with Hall, who until the previous August was a mere stranger to him. In the second or third week of that month Hall came to Lord Derby's house, and supped there, and desired to speak with Sir Thomas, who consented. He said that the Scottish Queen was minded to make her escape into Scotland if Sir Thomas would help thereto, and that by that coast, [i.e. of Lancashire], and prayed him to keep that device secret. Thinking that the matter might be so suppressed by him as that the same should take no such success, Sir Thomas said he would never betray it, “never meaning to be partaker of any such fact, but to break the same by delay, as time hath showed, being almost a year past since the motion was made.” It should seem, Sir Thomas states, that there was determination neither of the manner nor of the time, but as far as he could perceive, if the Queen of Scots “could have conveyed herself away,” a Scottish “punyse” [? pinnace] would have been brought to have received her. While the matter was standing so uncertainly he heard that Hall was a man sought for by the Earl of Shrewsbury. Hall, “standing in doubt of” the Earl, remained in Lancashire some time, and afterwards, before Michaelmas, went into Shropshire. Sir Thomas acknowledges that he has also offended the Queen's Majesty, in that, passing by Chancery Lane, he received at the hands of a stranger a letter directed to Lord Herries or Lord Fleming. This letter was sealed; the stranger delivered the same with these words, “the Bishop of Ross hath sent you this to be delivered to Hall.” Sir Thomas received it and sent for Hall, and himself delivered it to him “one evening in the park at the new park.” He never saw him since, nor heard of him, until he heard that he had accused one Hart for the delivery of this letter. Sir Thomas declares he does not know the Bishop of Ross, nor does the latter know him; he never had any dealing with the Bishop, or with any of his, saving on the above occasion. Prays their Lordships to be the means to mitigate the Queen's indignation towards him, who has worthily deserved it. Recalls to their remembrance his fidelity to Elizabeth in Queen Mary's time, and also his zeal for Her Majesty's service during the late rebellion in the North. Again asks them to pray the Queen for mercy for this his “first offence.” Endorsed:—15 July.
1571, July 15.	2 pp.
	Notes of the Examination of Francis Rolleston, Sir Thos. Gerrard, and Sir Thos. Stanley, before Sir T. Smith, T. Wilson, and Wm. Fleetwood.
1571, July 18.	Brief jottings referring to the plot for the liberation of Queen Mary. Sir Thomas Stanley says that he never heard of the design to proclaim Mary, after her escape, in Lancashire and other shires adjoining. In answer to the questions contained in Burghley's letter to Sir T. Smith (which follows this document), he says, (1.) There is a statute, and there was commission sent down the summer after the rebellion for the providing of armour accordingly, the which he with others did see executed; but to no gentlemen was armour delivered, but their own, whereto they were bound by statute, and the town harness only was committed to the town keeping according to the statute. (2.) The oath was offered about four years ago and before the rebellion time, it arose in consequence of a variance between the Earl and Countess. Whereupon, by Sir George Stanley's advice, the oath was administered to all the Earl's sons and to his servants, which he “named to be of his counsel,” and to no other; that they should be true to my Lord, and keep his counsel secret, reserving their duty to the Queen's Majesty and her heirs. The which oath remains still in the register of the house (as he thinks) in Sir George Stanley's hand; sure he is it was done by the said Sir George's advice. (3.) There are no images newly set up in any chapel the Earl has, that he knows of, that ever he saw, since the Queen's Majesty's reign. (4.) He never spake with the Bishop of Ross in his life, nor knows him, although he may peradventure have seen him in the Court. He only received a letter by an unknown man from him to the Lord Herries or Fleming in Scotland, which the said man said was to help to convey John Hall into Scotland; the which letter he took gladly, because he wished the said Hall away, because he would gladly never have heard more of his practices.—18 July 1571.
1571, July 18.	1¼ pp.
	1577. Lord Burghley to Sir Thomas Smith.
1571, July 18.	“Since your departure hence this morning there is information given of three things whereupon you are to deal with Sir Thomas Stanley. 1. What weapons and armour were delivered to certain gentlemen in the county of Lancaster, by his knowledge, about the time of the rebellion, and to whom, &c. 2. Whether the Earl of Derby's servants were not commanded to be sworn about the same time, which was not used before that time; and what oath took they, by whose advice was it given, and why. 3. What images were set up of late in the chapel of Latham, by whose commandment. Beside this Her Majesty hath willed me to require you to be sharp with them and to search out all that you can concerning the Bishop of Ross, and his intelligence with them. And so I wish you to return fully fraughted with knowledge of the things you shall seek for. This Wednesday, 18 Julii 1571.
1571, July 18.	1 p.
	1578. Examination of Francis Rolleston.
1571, July 20.	1. Interrogatories, dated 20 July, for Francis Rolleston, concerning the plot for the liberation of Queen Mary.
	Endorsed:—20 July 1571.
	1¼ pp.
[1571], July 20.	2. Answers of Francis Rolleston to the foregoing articles, given before Sir Thos. Smith and Thos. Wilson.
	Showing that Chatsworth was considered a very convenient place from which to effect the escape of the Scottish Queen; and that, chiefly by means of horsemen, the matter might be accomplished when the Queen “walked to the height of the moors.” Sir Thomas Stanley was the only other person, except Sir Thomas Gerrard and Hall, whom Rolleston desired to be made privy to the plot. Rolleston was only twice with Sir T Stanley concerning the plot. It was not resolved upon to what place the Queen should have been carried from Chatsworth, because the matter never grew to any certain determination or likelihood, but if it had, he supposes it would have been towards the borders of Lancashire, or some such place near the sea; and this to have been done “with a round troop of horsemen.” Rolleston says he never wrote to the Queen of Scots in cypher or otherwise with any person; nor does he remember any subscription to any letter. But, as he recollects, Hall spake of one that was written; but who delivered the same Hall best knows, and not he, who was not near where any such was devised and written. He and John Hall met on the moors with Beton, who, after some discourse on the enterprise, wished Rolleston to see to the delivery of a cipher, which he was to give to the latter in a few days. This cipher Rolleston delivered to Sir Thomas Stanley, on the first occasion he met with him. The other occasion was when he signified to the said Sir Thomas that the matter had been revealed by his son, George Rolleston, since which he had not heard of or from Sir Thomas Stanley, nor had the latter from him. Had met Sir Thomas Gerrard three or four several times; first, at Buxton, where for the first time he (Rolleston) received any full understanding of this matter, or dealt, or intended to deal, anywise therein. Thinks Sir T. Gerrard mistaken about the sending of his letter to the Scottish Queen. The priest John Motteram was not the bearer thereof. One “well in years,” called Kottam, came to Rolleston, and showed him a letter which he said must go to the Queen of Scots. This letter, says Rolleston, was “so torn and wet that it was not to be read, as I could perceive, and so I told him. Which letter I neither opened, nor coveted the same; and as for the effect of it I know not, for that I looked not of it, but in his hand that was the messenger, and further thereof I never heard word.” He cannot tell how the matter brake off unless it were upon its being revealed. “For this I am well assured to advertise your Honours of, that I never saw this cause, being so unres pectively and evil grounded, like to work any exploit or take effect.” Rolleston says he gave both Sir Thos. Gerrard and Sir Thos. Stanley information that the matter had been revealed. The knowledge of this he gained partly on his son's return from Court; but he had had a jealousy of the same in his son. Soon after Rolleston heard of the circumstance through a lacquey of the Scottish Queen. He received no answer from her further than that the lacquey brought, which was that she heard his son had revealed all the matter before the whole Council. As touching the “assurances” of the actors in the enterprise, if it had taken effect, Rolleston for his part never “kest” for the same, nor thought anything thereof. He never for a long time saw or participated with Lord Dudley and Sir Edward Stanley, or either of them, in or con cerning “this unadvised enterprise;” and as for John Fitzherbert, he had not seen him for nearly a year and a half, nor does he know where he is. “And, in fine, the truth is, I never practised or durst make privy any of my friends in this matter, further than those three, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Gerrard, and Hall, and my son. For assuredly, and of my faith, I never saw, or could certainly perceive, it would ever take any effect.” Rolleston further says he never dealt with the Bishop of Ross, either by speech or letter. He confesses that a great part of Hall's dealing in the matter was owing to himself; he recommended Hall to Beton, Sir T. Stanley and Sir T. Gerrard, as one “apt to travail” therein. “Also this I further call to remembrance, that if this enterprise had taken or grown to effect (as certainly I never saw a . . . . . . . . . thereof, for every one was in doubt of other), then I . . . . certainly that the said Queen of Scots should [have been] proclaimed King and Queen of England . . . . . . . . . . sundry places, and, as near as could have been, at one point and instant.” Craves pardon, pleading his age, infirmity, and poverty; and also his inability to stand the rigour of his imprisonment.—20 July.
	Autograph and Signed. 2¾ pp.
	1579. The Duke of Norfolk to Laurence Banister.
1571, July 20.	“I have received your letter of the xvijth of this July. I understand by the same that you have written unto me by a man of Cuthbert Musgrave's, but I have not yet received that letter. For the payment of the money at Keswick, whereof you write that you have paid 700l., and have taken order to pay one hundred pounds more to them there on St. James' day next, I like very well thereof, so that they be contented withal; for otherwise it will be an hindrance to my credit in those matters hereafter. Touching the Vice-Chancellorship of the Duchy, I was not unmindful of you therein, but you know what an assured friend I have had of Mr. Chancellor himself, and so he continueth towards me still. The night after Mr. Cams died he gave the office to Mr. Attorney, notwithstanding his promise of the same passed unto me long before. But it is no great matter, 1 doubt not but I shall be able one day to help you to as good an office or better than that is. I mind abouth the 10th of September next, to send down Hasset and my auditor to you, to finish the survey of Clun and Oswestry, which you and Mr. Necten have already begun, and because I would so perfect the same in all respects, as hereafter things might remain there in some perfect stay, for the doing whereof I have thought good, as well for the better countenance of the matter, as also for that I would have some learned of those marches to be privy to my proceedings therein, whereby if the tenants shall hereafter exclaim, they may be good witnesses to stop their mouths, I have thought good, I say, to join two learned men about the Council there, to be Commissioners for me with you in that behalf, and therefore I would have you by your next, to name two such unto me as you shall think fittest for the purpose, to the end I may join them in commission with Hasset and the rest. And thus for this time I end. From Howard House the xxth of July 1571. Your loving Master, T. Norfolk.”
	Addressed;—“To my loving servant, Laurence Banister, my officer general in the North.”
	1 p.
	1580. Robert Higford to Lawrence Bannister.
1571, July 26.	Having so good opportunity by means of the bearer Mr. Walcote, he could not but write, though he has no matter worth the writing to him. “News we have here none at all, other than that the resolution for the Duke of Anjon his marriage is daily looked for; some think that it will take place, but most men do doubt thereof, because (as it is said) the Queen's Majesty will give no toleration of religion, neither to him nor his; and it is thought that without he may have toleration thereof he will proceed no further. This is all that we hear thereof.” Wishes he were in the country with Banister where he might neither hear news nor write news, “unless of some better state here among us, than we yet can taste of, or are like to feel, for aught that I can perceive.” Sends his commendations to Banister's wife and best wishes for health, &c. to them both.—Howard House, 26 July 1571.
	[Postcript.] “Because I have no good thing to send to your good wife I have by this bearer sent her a pair of harvest gloves; I doubt not but she is so great a harvest woman, as she hath wrought out all her gloves, and that makes me remember her with so good a token.”
	¾ p.
	1581. Interrogatories and Answers of John Hall.
1571, July 30.	Hall says he never heard of any determinate order or manner of the Queen of Scots' delivery; howbeit it was thought that she might be taken away, either as she was shooting, or otherwise riding abroad to take the air. Sir T. Stanley willed him to beware that he made no man privy to the matter, and that he should be circumspect, not only of the carriage of the letter to the Scottish Queen, but also of himself because the Earl of Shrewsbury was his [Hall's] heavy Lord. It was feared that Sir T. Gerrard would be over liberal in speech, and so the matter might be bewrayed, which made Sir T. Stanley fearful to enter into it. Hall admits that the names of Lord Dudley and Sir Edward Stanley were added by Sir T. Stanley (for what cause he knew not) to the letter in cipher sent to the Queen of Scots; this letter had been signed by Sir T. Gerrard and Sir T. Stanley. “As to the manner of the having away of the Queen of Scots from Chatsworth at that time,” [i.e. when he met Beton to get the Queen's answer],” Beton said nothing. For he utterly at that time misliked (sic), for that he saw no likelihood of the doing of the matter, neither safety nor certainty of passage for his mistress, and to that end talked with me, as from the Queen his mistress, willing the aforesaid gentlemen to desist from their purpose. Also there was no mean in the house to deal with any that would favour the cause, only the Queen had servants (as lie said) to the number of 20 persons, which were nightly locked into their chambers, and so could not do service in that behalf; for it was thought by Beton at that time that the night was most convenient for that purpose, both for the more secret conveyance of men for the doing of the matter, and also in that time the Earl's servants would be most unprovided, either to defend or pursue. And further he said the Queen his mistress would not from thenceforth suffer him to go any more out of the house about the matter for avoiding of suspicion, for that she might thereby be disappointed of his service, which] she would not spare” . . . . . . . . “I gathered by that John Beton said unto me, as aforesaid, that by that letter the Queen of Scots willed the said gentlemen to leave the matter off, for the causes which Beton should express to me by mouth, which were these aforesaid; as also for their own safeties, declaring further, that she nothing doubted but the Queen's Majesty, at the request of the Kings of Spain and France, would restore her to her former dignity hereafter, the which she rather minded to expect, than to adventure upon a more uncertainty, by such means to work her own delivery, which might, if the matter miscarried, turn her to confusion, and all her partakers. This John Beton told me to this end, that, if I should chance to be in danger of taking, I might (sic) convey the letter, and yet notwithstanding express the contents thereof.” Hall states that he was but once with the Bishop of Ross, at which time Doctor Smith came to the house about matters of physic; and none else was privy to his being with the Bishop, neither was the Doctor privy to the cause of his going thither. The Bishop advised him to keep himself as secret as he could, for the avoiding of apprehension, if he should haply be pursued, which the Bishop doubted not as he said, for that he thought the son would never bewray his father. That George Rolleston had disclosed the matter at Court, Hall heard from Francis Rolleston, who first advertised him that he was pursued, and that, by means of George Rolleston's discovery. [Hall here gives the purport of the letter written by the Bishop of Ross on his behalf when he fled to Scotland: see the letter above, No. 1539, dated Jan. 27th 1570/71, Hall being therein designated Robert Jonson] He never heard it talked whither the Queen of Scots should have been conveyed. “For they never agreed by what means they might get her safe out of Chatsworth. And as for the assurance of ourselves, I do not remember that there was ever any talk or consideration thereof; neither did I ever see any likelihood of the bringing the matter to pass, that we should need to cast so far.” He never heard nor knew of any motion for the proclamation of Queen Mary after she should have escaped to the seaside. He does not know who made Sir Piers Alec privy to the bringing of her to Limeport, nor whether he were ever dealt withal or no; but, as he remembers, it was devised by Sir T. Gerrard, that, if they could get the Queen of Scots out of Chatsworth, by that way it were most convenient to bring her; but he rather thinks that Sir T. Gerrard never durst deal with Sir Piers in that matter. Hall knew that Sir T. Stanley, Sir T. Gerrard. Francis Rolleston, John Beton and he himself were privy to the enterprise, but he did not deal with any others, nor does he know of any more that were privy thereunto. He never had any conference with any of the Earl of Shrewsbury's servants, neither does he know that any other had any conference with any of them for the furtherance of the matter; neither did he deal, nor know that any other dealt, with any man, except with John Beton. He never received money in the name of the Queen of Scots, nor by any of hers, for his relief. “And now, having answered my knowledge in these Interrogatories, which have by writing been ministered unto me, may it please your Lordships and Honours to pardon me in that I presume somewhat further to express in sum my knowledge, for the discharge of my duty towards the Queen's Highness, touching the persons with whom, (in evil time,) 1 dealt, and their several depositions in this matter, as by my simple brain I conceived them, with the accusation of myself also. First, as 1 have before said, so true it is that the first provoker of me to enter into this matter was Francis Rolleston. The same Francis did also, by John Beton, give my name to the Queen of Scots, for whom, and with whom, I never had dealing before this time. He also procured me to go to Sir Thomas Gerrard, that, understanding his forwardness, I might the rather be moved to take a part in the device. He also acquainted me with Sir Thomas Stanley, whom I never knew, until I unadvisedly consented to meddle in this matter, which I would I had not known. And as to Sir Thomas Gerrard and Frauds Rolleston, whom I perceived to be most forward and willing to set this matter “abroche,” for anything that I know or remember, I never could guess any liklihood that their device could take effect; for that, without all consideration to any respect, they went on pleasing themselves with the conceit they had devised, and imagined that it could not but fall out as they wished, and that all men would have joined with them; for, of resistance, of safety, or peril, there was no talk that I heard of, neither any man named that would be partaker of the matter. Sometimes they thought a very small number of horsemen would do the feat, at other times they thought it would be expedient to have at the least a hundred horsemen well appointed, at some times two hundred. One while they would ship her into the parts beyond the seas, at another time they would imagine they might keep her in some secret place undiscovered, if she could not have ready passage. The same Francis brought me also to speak with John Beton upon the high moors; whom I never heard make any discourse of numbers of men for the performance of the device, but always kept close, and lay in the wind to learn what they were able to do, never expressing anything of the Queen his mistress' counsel, and yet showed a desire to have the matter take effect, if with safety of his mistress' person it might be done. As to Sir Thomas Stanley, who was brought first to be a dealer in the matter by Sir Thomas Gerrard, as I think, and after pricked forward by Francis Rolleston, what discourses were amongst them, or what pursuasions they used to provoke him, or what forwardness they saw or hoped in him, they themselves know, and not I. But this I know, that, after I entered with him, I saw him very fearful and loath to deal with Sir Thomas Gerrard, or in the cause, because the same Sir Tho. Gerrard shewed himself so apparently forward, as that it could not be, but that through his open dealing the matter would be discovered; and yet, he might not sequester him, because he was the deviser of it, and the first breaker with him in the device. And so, for the continuance of friendship, and because he had promised, he would not seem to give it over at the first, but to join for that time in a letter with Sir Tho. Gerrard, to see what answer would be made; seeming as though he would not after that deal any further. But as to any discourse that ever Sir Thomas Stanley made with me, but ever wished that he had not so lightly given ear to Sir Thomas Gerrard, ever pressing me with secrecy, I never heard; and as to the adding of those other names to the letter, what cause moved Sir Thomas Stanley so to do I know not. When I came back with the answer of the letter, as he was discontent with the discovery, so was he glad to hear that the Queen of Scots had no will to deal further in the matter, and so desired me to depart, desiring of God that he might never hear more of the matter. So I departed, as I heretofore have confessed; and never dealt, neither since nor before, with the Bishop of Ross, otherwise than I, in my former declaration, have confessed. The next news that I heard was this: Francis Rolleston advised me to keep myself, for a time, out of the way, because his son had discovered me, which he had never done, neither had your Lordships ever been privy of that device, had not his mother procured him, for some secret grudge she bare towards me, so to do. Then told I Sir Thos. Stanley thereof. He advised me to go into Scotland. I refused, because I knew no means of safety in an unknown, but chiefly in a so divided country. After the said Thomas Stanley, by what means I know not, procured the Bishop of Boss his letter from me, and then, upon Sir Thomas' request, I went into Scotland.” Concludes by acknowledging his offence, and craving the Queen's pardon for the same.—30 July 1571.
1571, July 30.	Autograph and Signed, 9 pp.
	1582a. Sir Thomas Gerrard to the Privy Council.
[1571, July].	It is his principal trust that when he has done all things that may seem good to their honours, according to his power and duty, that then they would move the Queen to have mercy on him, who never had evil thought against her royal person, fully trusting that her Majesty, who “hath spared greater offenders,” will not deal sharply with him. When Hall and Francis Rolleston came and conferred with him at the Brinne, it was concluded that he should go to Latham, and break the matter with Sir Thomas Stanley. Whether this.was concluded before they came to his house, or not, he is not certain, but he went to Latham accordingly, and opened the matter unto Lord Dudley, Sir Thomas Stanley, and Sir Edward Stanley, especially to Sir T. Stanley, who, after discourse thereof, wished him to send Francis Rolleston to him on a certain day, from a park of Gerrard's, called the Windhilshawe; which he did. The said Franpis had with him “at the same time,” [i.e. of the conference at the Brinne,] a cipher from the Queen of Scots, containing letters, words, and names; which he and John Hall declared to Sir T. Stanley was delivered to them by one. John Betonson (sic), not far from Chatsworth. Sir T. Stanley seemed now to “sequester” him from the cause, and this he found fault with as Hall can tell; nevertheless, within two or three days after, he was appointed by a letter from Hall, to meet him and Sir T. Stanley in the highway towards Winwick from Latham. And there, somewhat out of the same, in a little “clowe” or “shroges” they alighted; there also the said Sir Thomas and Hall showed him a cipher, wherein was ciphered the offer of certain horsemen to deliver the Scots Queen out of prison, or rather a signification how many they could make for the same purpose, but the truth hereof he cannot tell, for that he came but on the sudden, and heard it but once read. After this reading, Sir T. Stanley subscribed the letter with a roman “a”; he with a roman “b”; and then Hall wrote certain ciphers for Lord Dudley, Sir Edward Stanley, and himself. Hall departed on his journey to deliver the letter, and returned as the writer remembers within eight days. For answer he brought that it was not well liked unless they would take upon them absolutely to deliver her, which they denied in their cipher they could do, except they had her aid. Whereof when they had considered a time, being together at Latham, they grew to divers minds. He himself was in mind that they might safe enough bring her first to Limeport, and so into Lancashire, and so further to Man [Isle of Man] or “home,” as they had before thought, but Sir T. Stanley and Hall consulted together, not permitting Lord Dudley or himself to know of the same, until they had resolved that Hall should go to London, to know what the opinion of the Bishop of Boss was in this case, whereupon Hall was despatched. And they all in manner determined not to think well of the premisses, whereof he wrote to the Queen of Scots, and sent it by a little priest of Francis Rolleston's, offering to her a device that she should come away disguised, and so to escape after a time, which she misliked, and let him also understand of the discovery of Hall, by common bruit, as she thought. Hall in a short time came into Lancashire to Sir T. Stanley, but what he told him the writer knows not. But when Hall came to Gerrard's house, he said it was determined, amongst the rest, that the matter should be “lapped up.” Whereupon they all resolved so to do. But within a few days after, “old Rolleston” came to his house himself, and showed him, and in like manner to Sir T. Stanley afterward at Latham, that his son to whom he had told the same, had discovered the whole matter. Whereupon grew the determination that Hall should be kept secret, and that the father should deny the son's accusations, whereupon they thought the thing should have been kept undisclosed, yet for his own part he was doubtful, and thought to have absented himself, when he heard that the pursuivant was at Latham. His perplexity of mind since. His deep regret for having entered into any such matter by the persuasion of any euch persons. If he finds favour, desires opportunity for such service as may be a recompense for his past follies.
[1571, July].	2¾ pp.
	1582b. The Privy Council to—Worsley.
1571, July 10.	Directing him to deliver up, to the use of “Mr.” “Francis Walsingham and Ursula his wife, formerly wife of Richard Worsley deceased, the possession of the Priory of Carisbrook in the Isle of Wight and of a house in Southampton, together with the leases thereof, and certain plate, implements, household stuff, &c, bequeathed by the said Richard to his two sons by the said Ursula, and finally adjudged of right to appertain to her. [Walsingham is mentioned here as Ambassador at the French court.]
	Endorsed.—10 Jul. 1571.
	Draft with corrections by Lord Burghley. 2 pp.
	1582c. Isle of Guernsey.
1571, July.	Draft of a minute from the Queen to the Captain, Bailiff, and Jurats of Guernsey, touching certain crown lands there that had been wrongfully conveyed in fee farm to sundry persons. Directs inquiry to be made into the abuse, and where such lands are found to have been so conveyed, the Captain of Guernsey to re-enter into possession in her name, and the occupants to be charged to repair to the Privy Council.
1571, July.	Endorsed:—July 1571. ¾ p.
	1583. Robert Higford to Lawrence Banister.
1571, Aug. 29.	Speaks of the purchase of certain stuff, Banister had asked ham to buy. The account for the same inclosed, a portion of which he had received from Banister. His reception of a friend of Banister's at Howard House. His poor state of health, and desire for a quiet life. “News we have here none of any certainty, things are so variable, and more changing than the moon. This great matter of the marriage with the Duke of Anjou altereth every hour. And albeit it went very hotly for a time, yet it is now so far calmed again, as it is rather thought it will be dashed, than that it will take effect; but what the end will be God knoweth. It is said that the Ambassador, Monsieur de Foix, who hath been here these ten days, shall receive either this day, or to-morrow, a determinate answer. God turn all to the best. The Queen's Majesty is now at Audley End, my Lord Grace's house, near to Walden, where her highness meaneth to remain till Monday next.” “All my lords and ladies at Kenynghall are well, thanks be to God, they are now in their hunting progress at Flitcham. Mr. Myddleton and his wife will be in the north parts about a three weeks hence.”—Howard House, 29 Aug. 1571.
	P.S.—“You shall receive a ticket, here inclosed, which you may peruse. My Lord's grace saith that Mr. Hasset, and Mr. Dyx, shall be at Ludlow the 9th day of this next month at night, where he would have you to meet them, and so to go directly to Clun.”
	Addressed to: Wem.
	Endorsed in different hands:—“I have directed this packet as from my Lord to you, because of the speedier conveyance”; “To Banister with the ciphered letter deciphered;” and “Higford's letter with ticket and ciphers.”
	2 pp.
	1584. John Douglas to Sir Henry Sidney, Lord Deputy of Ireland.
[1571.] Aug.	Encloses an account of certain matters, of which he deemed it his duty to inform Sir Henry. And for that he heard that his Lordship was gone into Flanders, “to the Spae,” (as reported in Dublin), he has sent the copy of this to Lord Burghley, because it seemed to him so dangerous and so weighty a thing, that he has not been in quiet nor could take the night's rest. Begs Sir Henry to let him hear from him as soon as possible, for the party who spake these words is with him in Ireland, and he means to keep him, until he hears from Sir Henry. He is at charges, with the keeping of him.—Dublin, August.
	Endorsed:—“Letters from John Douglas out of Ireland, and the Scottish Queen's conveyance.”
	Seal. 1 p. Encloses,
	States that on August 12, at Dunchurch, where he lodged that night, he met a travelling man that told him he came from the place where the King of Scots' mother lay. Douglas ashed him how she should have got away. His companion, “Archy Inglys, a Scottis mane borne,” said that he knew how she should have done so, before it was known in England. Douglas displeased, told him he “liked the worse of his company; “so they had no more talk that night. On the morrow, when riding by the way, he asked him what he meant by speaking such words as he did the night before, which might have brought them both to trouble. Inglis partly denied that he spake them in such sort, and said, if he did he teas “somthing over.” Then Douglas asked him how he knew in what manner the Scottish Queen should have got away, Inglis told him that there was one John “Synklar,” the Duke's man, “a Scottis mane borne” who was, as he said, in great credit with the Duke, and had the keeping of the charterhouse, where the Duke lay. When Sinclair and he were first acquainted, the former made Inglis believe that he favoured the King's mother and her partakers, and he assured Inglis that he would bring him into the Duke's service, if he pleased. And after they had companied together 3 or 4 times, Sinclair told him that there was nothing spoken in the Court touching the Duke, but he knew of it every night before he went to bed, by one Sir Nicholas “Strangis” [Strange]. He told Inglis also that it was the Duke and his friends that practised to have taken away the King's mother, and in this manner; that after sundry knights and gentlemen of the country had resorted to the Duke, they did appoint that certain men should have gone and taken her away, where she should have been at hunting, and companies of men should have been laid to have received her at every ten or twelve miles, and also the Duke should have gone away that same day, and have met her where they were appointed. Sinclair said also, the Queen's power had been nothing to the Duke, he would have had so many partakers; also, that the gentleman, who was the Duke's keeper, is of his counsel, and was privy to these enterprises, and to anything also that the Duke went about. Further, that the Duke might “lypon at his bak gayt,” if he pleased, “and red his way,” and send the queen word that he was gone, and that she would not be able to fetch him again. Sinclair said also, that the King's mother and the Duke were “assurid togyther,” and that he would marry her, if he lived, and that there went letters betwixt her and him, which were conveyed to her by the Bishop of Ross and his men. The stay of this enterprise was mostly because the Duke looked daily to be set at liberty, and then he thought to have brought this purpose to pass. After Sinclair and Inglis had had this talk, going together in “Poolis church” [St. Paul's], a man of the Bishop of Moss came to them, and called Sinclair aside, and bad him beware what he spake to Inglis, for Inglis was all against them and resorted to the Earl of Morton's house daily, when he was there, Sinclair returned back again to Inglis and told him what the Bishop's man had said. Inglis confessed that it was so. Then Sinclair desired that he would not disclose what he had told him before, for if he did, it was his utter undoing. Inglis promised never to disclose anything of it. Sinclair said, “You do disclose it, it is but your yea and my nay, and I will deny it so long as I live”
	1 p.
	1585. Confession of Sir Edward Stanley to the Privy Council.
[1571, Aug. .]	States in answer to various questions of their Lordships, which he puts down from memory, that he was not the first beginner or deviser for the delivery of the Scottish Queen, nor ever had any such intent. Sir Thos. Gerrard told Lord Dudley and him first of it, and said that one Rolleston and Hall were practisers of the same, and as Sir Edward never imparted the matter to any man, so, to his knowledge, there were no more made privy, “but suche as be tuchede nowe w^t alle.” He never subscribed his name to any letter to the Scottish Queen, for after he had heard first of the matter, to which he took small regard, he made a journey, as before he was minded into the north, to one Mrs. Strickland's, to whom he was a suitor, and at his return he accompanied his brother to speak with Rolleston and Hall, who before had sent to his brother to speak with him, at which meeting Rolleston confessed that his son had revealed the matter, and had only charged Hall with the whole cause, whereupon Hall said he must shift for himself as he could. Never heard that it was agreed upon that the Scottish Queen should have been conveyed away by horsemen, but that it was thought meetest she should have been conveyed by her servants to the sea coast by post horse. He never heard of any device for taking her to the house of Sir Piers “Lyghes,” nor for bringing of any ordnance from Latham or any other place to Chatsworth to batter the walls, but, as he told their Lordships, his father had a broken piece in the Isle of Man that was brought over to be cast anew, which was done accordingly long before any speech or talk had of her delivery, and there were no more pieces cast than one, called a “mynyonne,” which, in the casting, by unskilful workmanship, miscarried four times, and upon its finishing [was ?] not perfect. He never heard that there was a ship provided to convey the Scottish Queen away, and that one Wolfalle should have conducted the same. Nor did he ever hear in any way that Dudley Castle was victualled, and that his brother and he should come thither with Lord Dudley, and that no walls should hold them out, which report, their Lordships said, was made by a man of Lord Dudley's. His brother told him how the Bishop of Ross had sent him a letter for Hall's safety and conveyance into Scotland, as his brother took it, and that Sir Thomas received the letter of a stranger whom he knew not. Declares the truth of the foregoing confession, and assures himself through their Lordships means, of the Queen's pardon for these his offences against her.
[1571, Aug. .]	Holograph, isigned. 1½ pp.
	1586. The Queen to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
[1571, Aug.]	Directing him to proceed, as he has begun, in the reformation of ecclesiastical abuses and disorders committed contrary to the laws and injunctions for the due keeping of an uniform order in the divine service and rules of the Church. He is to send for the Bishops of London and Salisbury, that they may assist him in the work, the Bishop of Ely (who, with the Bishop of Winchester and some others had formerly helped him), having by her commandment repaired to his diocese. If he finds any remissness in the assistance of anyone, he is, if such remissness be not amended after admonition by him, to advertise her thereof.
[1571, Aug.]	Draft by Lord Burghley. 1 p. [Murdin, p. 183. In extenso.]
	1587. The Bishop of Glasgow to Mary Queen of Scots.
1571, Sept. 1.	Reports despatch of her ciphers dated 17 July to Pinart for the perusal of the Queen Mother who so directed him, promising to show them to the King and Anjou, and Pinart's observations. Since leaving Fontainebleau their Majesties have not met in Council till 26th August. As for Mary's request that the Ring should beg Spain's assistance in restoring her to liberty, Pinart wished that article had not been touched, as the King did not intermeddle with what Spain and England had to disentangle. Only jealousy was excited by her asking aid from Spain who had so long hindered the King of France from helping her, although considering her tedious imprisonment he saw nothing strange in her seeking aid anywhere, even from the Turk. Spain might undertake anything on the score of his old alliance, and indeed had so undertaken and sent men to Scotland, &c. As to help in seizing Inchkeith the captain chosen by Anjou was hourly expected, and would be at once embarked at Brest with 300 men, 100 for Inchkeith, the rest for Edinburgh.
	On the road from Blois to Chenonceau Pinart said that those who were the cause of breaking off the marriage between Anjou and Elizabeth were very unhappy, for it was the holiest, best advised matter of the age, redounding entirely to the good of Christendom. They thought they were acting in Mary's interests. He swore he knew well the intention of their Majesties that immediately Anjou was in England he should oblige her and restore her to her kingdom. By these good offices they would strengthen each other, and both help, the, Kipg; there was land enough to content all three to live at peace. So far was Anjou from being desirous to change religions that he had never even thought of it.
	He had a letter from the Queen of England importing that she would sign with her blood and the blood of the six principal personages in her realm [a promise] that [when] Anjou was in England he should make ordinances of religion as he thought best, in order to permit liberty of conscience, so that the Catholics might regain their possessions. Though it was broken off Providence reserved something better for Anjou.
	When De Foix had quitted their Majesties' presence he met Anjou and told him that notwithstanding their commands he would comply with anything he [Anjou] might require him to do. Anjou replied that he did not think he wished to betray them, and begged De Foix to follow their commands.
	At Chenonceau Pinart gave some hope of communicating their decision on the cipher, but asserted there was more therein than in Mary's letters to De la Motte, in which there was nothing about abandoning Edinburgh, but on Sunday he sang another tune. At the conclusion of the Council the writer's secretary spoke directly with the Queen Mother. She promised the decision in a few days, which though he waited for it, news from England, presented by De Foix and kept very secret, prevented him from receiving. All that Sunday afternoon the King, the Queen Mother, Anjou, and Finart were closeted in council, and De Retz reported it was because De Foix had brought forward the subject of the marriage. The Prince of Navarre's marriage will not take place so early. The Admiral is coming and is allowed to bring 400 men. There is nobody at court but the Cardinal de Bourbon, the Due de Bouillon, and those of Montmorency. Mary's uncles have not been at court for a long time except D'Aumale, who accompanied the King to Monpipeau and thence withdrew to Joinville. He told their Majesties that if they wished to send men there none knew Scotland better than he. Madame de Guise is to bed of a fine boy.—Paris, September 1st.
	P.S.—Regrets he has no better answer than this narrative from Pinart, and hopes in a few days at Blois to urge matters in person on their Majesties. Dares not send the dispensation asked for till her pleasure is known. Craffort is the bearer hereof. Begs regard for Fleming, from whom, considering his condition, he has nothing to send.
	In cipher, wrongly endorsed by Burghley: 1 Sep. 1572.
	3¼ pp.
	Decipher of preceding. French. 5¼ pp.
	1588. Examination of Robert Higford.
1571, Sept. 2.	His answer to interrogatories administered to him by Sir Thomas Smith and Dr. Thos. Wilson touching the 600/. sent by the Duke of Norfolk through him to Thomas Brown of Shrewsbury; and touching ciphers written to Banister.
1571, Sept. 2.	1 p. [Murdin, p. 67. In extenso.]
	1589. Sir Thos. Smith and Dr. Wilson to Lord Burghley.
1571, Sept. 3.	Higford's examinations. Sir Henry Nevill fearful to keep the Duke in so large a house, &c.—St. Katharine's, 3 Sept. 1571.
1571, Sept. 3.	1 p. [Murdin, p. 68. In extenso.]
	1590. Sir Ralph Sadler to Lord Burghley.
1571, Sept. 4	Receiving his letters one hour after midnight he rose from his bed and made haste to execute their contents. Arrived at Howard Place at 8 a.m. and found Nevill had discreetly ordered all things. The Duke is committed to his chamber, all his servants secluded from him out of the house, saving two to attend upon him in his chamber, and four or five necessary officers to provide and dress his meat. Intends to be on the spot all day with Nevill and Skipwith, and at night, when he goes to his lodging at the Savoy, will leave at least six men to watch. Thus he will continue till the Queen discharges him, which he prays may be soon on account of the commission for the subsidy in his county. Nevill guards so wisely and well that the writer's presence is not needful.—Howard Place, 4 September 1571. With note by Nevill of his receipt of the Queen's commands.
1571, Sept. 4	1 p.
	1591. Interrogatories and Answers of Robt. Higford.
1571, Sept. 4.	Touching the cipher marked [symbol], the 600l. delivered to him by Barker, &c.—The Tower, 4th Sept. 1571.
1571, Sept. 4.	1⅓ pp. [Murdin, pp. 69, 70. In extenso.]
	1592. Examination of William Barker.
1571, Sept. 4, 5.	Draft of “Articles to Mr. William Barker: given to be answered: 4^o Sept. 1571” These are seven in number, and refer chiefly to a sum of 600l. in gold, delivered by Barker to Higford, in the service of the Duke of Norfolk. Subjoined are Barker's replies, and also a statement of Higford, under date of Sept. 5, 1571, from which it appears that Higford, by the Duke's direction, received the aforesaid sum from Barker; also that the letter to Banister was written before Higford went to Barker for the money, and in cipher under the instructions of the Duke only.
1571, Sept. 4, 5.	2½ pp. [Murdin, p. 87–88. In extenso, except the last mentioned statement.]
	1593. Sir Andrew Corbett to Lords Leicester and Burghley, and others of the Privy Council.
1571, Sept. 6.	Notifying the apprehension of Banister, the search of his house, &c.—Moreton Corbett, 6 Sept. 1571.
1571, Sept. 6.	¾ p. Endorsed. [Murdin, p. 130. In extenso.]
	1594. Sir Andrew Corbett to Lords Leicester and Burghley.
1571, Sept. 6.	Encloses letter sent by Brown, a Welsh draper, to Banister immediately on his apprehension. It purported certain stuff from London with a packet of things therein contained. Has sent to Brown for the stuff and packets of letters and coin which the writer has presently sent them sealed, &c. Has examined Brown; he says the packet came to his hands from Higford, the Duke's Secretary.—6 Sept. 1571.
	P.S.—Turner, Banister's servant, is one of the most disobedient men in these parts, both to God and the Queen; is messenger and executor of all the North affairs, never resteth a month, but either to London or the North [hasteth]; keepeth fresh horses purposely.
	Enclosure:—
	Brown to Banister.
	Reporting disbursements pn his behalf, viz., to Barker, 13l. 6s. 8d, to Higford, 17l. 11s. 6d., for carriage, 6s. 8d. Had a bag of money of Mr. Higford to deliver to him which was delivered over to a carrier to be at home this night. Begs payment of the sums laid out for him.—Salop, Wednesday, [5 Sept. 1571].
	2 pp.
	1595. Sir R. Sadler, Sir Thos. Smith, and Dr. Wilson to Lord Burghley.
1571, Sept. 7.	Informing him that “this day, about 5 o'clock,” they conveyed the Duke of Norfolk from his house to the Tower, &c.—The Tower, 7 Sept. 1571.
	P.S. by Sir R. Sadler that Burghley would help to discharge him [Sir Ralph], for he would gladly be at home.
	½ p. [Murdin, p. 148. In extenso.]
	1596. Sir R. Sadler, Sir T. Smith, and Dr. T. Wilson to the Queen.
1571, Sept. 7.	Had that afternoon gone to the Duke, and declared to him that, for his obstinate dealing and denial of his great faults, Her Majesty was sore offended with him, and had determined to use him more severely, signifying to him that he should not have the liberty he had had, but should be removed to another place by Her Highness's commandment. Submissive conduct of the Duke. Seemed willing to open all his doings with respect to the matter of sending money into Scotland, partly agreeing with Barker's confession. They encouraged him to continue thus, and fully and plainly to confess his fault. The Duke content to go whither Her Highness commanded. They took him, between 4 and 5 o'clock that afternoon, to the Tower, on a “fotecloth nag,” Sir R. Sadler on the one side, Sir T. Smith on the other, and Dr. Wilson going immediately after, accompanied only by their servants and friends, and without any trouble, “save a number of idle rascal people, women, men, boys, and girls, running about him, and, as the manner is, gazing at him.” They left certain articles in writing with him, to think upon against the next morning, and to answer them, either in writing, or else “by speech” to them at that time, the Duke choosing the latter course. So they left him in the custody of the Lieutenant and Henry Skip with; and two of his own servants to attend on him. When they have his answer, they will immediately send it to Her Highness.—The Tower, 7 Sept., 1571.
1571, Sept. 7.	1 p. [Murdin, p. 149. In extenso.]
	1597. The Queen to the Lieutenant of the Tower.
1571, Sept. 7.	Warrant directing him to receive into his custody the Duke of Norfolk. Henry Skipwith to continue with the prisoner for some time. Sundry directions for the strict keeping of the Duke. Lord Burghley adds, at the close of the warrant, “You shall do well presently to shut up in close prison for a time, all prisoners that are thither committed for obstinacy in religion, or such as you may conjecture will deal for intelligence in favour of the Duke.”
	Endorsed:—Sept. 7, 1571.
	Draft. 1 p.
	1598. Examination of the Duke of Norfolk.
1571, Sept. 8.	Acknowledges having offended Her Majesty, and states reasons for his previous denial. He explains how it was he came to communicate with Monsieur de Foix, the French Ambassador; gives particulars concerning the sending of money into Scotland for the “faction” of the Queen of Scots; denies all knowledge of a deciphered letter of discourse now read to him; but admits having both sent letters to the Queen of Scots, and received letters from her,—8th Sept. 1571.
	[This document has marginal comments in Lord Burghley's haud.]
	Signed. l¾ pp. [Murdin, pp. 151, 152. In extenso.]
	1599. Sir Ralph Sadler, Sir Thos. Smith and Dr. Wilson to Lord Burghley.
1571, Sept. 8.	Reporting their examination of the Duke of Norfolk, his great sorrow, &c. Barker has been three or four times examined:, but hitherto hath showed an obstinate and a fool. To remove him from the Tower to a better place were to encourage him. Such order is taken that the Duke can have no advertisements by him. The Tower is kept very strait.—From the. Tower, 8 Sept. 1571.
	P.S.—Acknowledging letters with a memorandum from Ireland. Sir Ralph Sadler renews his request to be released from London, the execution of the Commission for the subsidy being stayed in his shire till his coming.
	1 p. [Murdin, p. 150. In extenso.]
	1600. Sir Thos. Smith, and Dr. T. Wilson to Lord Burghley.
1571, Sept. 9.	Had done nothing with the Duke that day, because Sir R. Sadler would not have more to do with him, until he heard again from Lord Burghley; yet had they not been idle. They had talked with Acerbo Vitelli, and send herewith the result. Their meeting with Gruido Cavalcanti on the Tower wharf, and their conversation with him about the money from the French King that had been intercepted on its way to Scotland. The French Ambassador's intention to write to the Queen, and demand it. Legal argument on this point. Finding of the missing cipher in the tiles of Howard House. They corrected herewith their decipher of the letter of discourse, which they had read to the Duke in the Tower on the Saturday before, and of which he had denied all knowledge. Barker as yet seemed somewhat obstinate or foolish; they suppose he will “come on” at the last, if he have anything, to utter it. George Douglas, having a passport at the court (as they heard say), was gone already into France. Have found out John Sinclair, who is scarcely known by that name, but called John Gardener; he is the keeper of the Duke's house, and the same who is described in the memorandum from Ireland. He had dwelt with the Duke for ten years, and before with Sir Nicholas Strange for eight years. Sinclair denied all. They committed him to the Tower, till they hear more from Lord Burghley. Desire more instructions concerning Charles Bailly if his Lordship thinks it needful.—St. Katherine's, 9 Sept. 1571.
1571, Sept. 9.	1¾ pp. [Murdin, pp. 88–90. In extenso.]
	1601. Report of a Conversation between Archy Inglis and John Sinclair, servant of the Duke of Norfolk.
[1571, Sept. 9.]	The writer lodging on the night of August 12, at Dunchurch, met Inglis who said he knew from the said Sinclair how the Queen of Scots should have gotten away before it was known in England. The Duke's friends practised to have taken her away thus: after several knights and gentlemen of the country had resorted to the Duke by one or two together, certain men should have gone and taken her away where she should have been at hunting, and companies of men should have been laid to have received her at every 10 or 12 miles end. The Duke should have gone away that same day and met her. The Queen's power had been nothing to the Duke's; he would have had so many partakers. He who is the Duke's keeper is of the Duke's counsel and privy to this enterprise. The Duke might leap on horseback at his back door, ride his way, and send the Queen word that he was gone, and she should not be able to fetch him again. The Queen of Scots and he [the Duke] were assured together, and he would marry her if he lived. Letters between them were conveyed by the Bishop of Ross. Sinclair and Inglis going together to St. Paul's were met by one of the Bishop's men, who called Sinclair aside, and bade him beware of Inglis as a daily resorter to the Earl of Morton's house. Hereupon Sinclair desired him not to disclose what he had told him, which Inglis promised. Sinclair said if he did disclose it, it would be but his yea to his [Sinclair's] nay; he would deny it as long as he lived. Annexed,
	Affidavit of John Sinclair, 10 years servant of the Duke of Norfolk, and 7 years previously of Sir Nicholas Strange, in denial of the foregoing statement. He never knew nor saw Inglis.
	2¼ pp.
	1602. Submission of the Duke of Norfolk.
1571, Sept. 10.	The Duke makes a most humble submission, and prays for pardon.—The Tower, 10 Sept. 1571.
	Endorsed by Lord Burghley :—“x. Septemb. 1571. The Duke of Norfolk's submission to the Queen's Majesty.”
	Copy. 1¾ pp. [Murdin, p. 153. In extenso.]
	1603. Interrogatories and Answers of Wm. Barker.
1571, Sept. 10.	As to his communication with the French Ambassador touching the 600l. to be conveyed into Scotland, how he broke the matter to the Duke, his answer, &c. His conference with the Bishop of Ross, and communications with his servants. Has had nothing to do with servants of the Queen of Scots. Knows none of the Spanish Ambassador's servants.
1571, Sept. 10.	5 pp. [Murdin, pp. 90–92. In extenso.]
	1604. Answers of Lawrence Banister.
1571, Sept. 11.	Knows of no intelligence between the Duke, his master, and the Queen of Scots, &c. Never had but one cipher and that was betwixt him and Liggons about St. James'-tide, 1569.
1571, Sept. 11.	In Cecil's hand. 1¾ pp. [Murdin, p. 130. In extenso.]
	1605. Examination of Wm. Barker.
1571, Sept. 12.	The first letter he ever received from the Bishop of Boss was in October 1570. Has always taken the Spanish Ambassador for an odious man, therefore has utterly abhorred to deal with him. Had no great affection for Ridolfi, but had to do with him on account of a bond the Duke stood charged to him for Lord Lumley. Ridolfi said the Duke was too dastardly and soft; if he would do no more for the Queen of Scots, there were others that would, &c.
1571, Sept. 12.	1½ p. [Murdin, p. 92. In extenso.]
	1606. Confession of Wm. Barker and Robert Higford before Sir Thos. Smith and Dr. Thos. Wilson.
1571, Sept. 14.	Barker received in July last a packet of letters of the French Ambassador, De la Motte, &c, to be sent to Banister and Lowther for conveyance to Lord Herries. Higford acknowledges the above, explaining his former suppression of the truth.
1571, Sept. 14.	1¾ pp. [Murdin, p. 93. In extenso.]
	1607. Interrogatories and Answer of Robt. Higford.
1571, Sept. 16 and 17.	Denies knowledge of any other practices, Ac. than those he has confessed. As to art magic remembers the Duke showed him more than a quarter ago a prophecy beginning, In exaltatione lunæ Leo succumbet, and ending Et Leo cum Leone conjungetur, et Catuli eorum regnabunt, but he made no great account of it.
	Ligons' letters were always advertisements of the state of the Scottish Queen's causes received from the Bishop of Glasgow. Has written three letters since Lent to Banister, &c.
	4 pp. [Murdin, pp. 70–73. In extenso.]
	1608. Interrogatories and Answers of Wm. Barker.
1571, Sept. 17.	Denying all knowledge of other practices than those he has confessed which the Duke has entered into touching the delivery of the Queen of Scots or marrying her; of any divination by art magic or astronomy as to the same or as to the succession. Ridolfi told him that the English exiles in Flanders had sent Harvey into Spain to move a marriage between the Queen of Scots and Duke John of Austria. Since the Bishop of Ross was shut up one or two letters have passed between the Duke and the Queen of Scots by means of the French Ambassador.
1571, Sept. 17.	6½ pp. [Murdin, pp. 97–99. In extenso.]
	1609. Sir Thos. Smith and Dr. Thos. Wilson to Lord Burghley.
1571, Sept. 17.	Crave revocation from their unpleasant and painful toil. Would not wish to be one of Homer's gods if they thought they should be Minos, Æacus, or Rhadamanthus; had rather be one of the least umbræ in campis Elysiis. Intend to bring a couple to the rack, not in hope to get anything worthy that pain, but because it is so earnestly commanded. Their opinion of the whole matter is that the malicious attempt was begun and perfected at the Duke's first apprehension and the rebellion in the North. They forward the opinion his own have of him, found privately set into the inside of the pasteboards of a book entitled Flores Historiarum which the Duke sent for. Also a paper found upon a woman intended to be delivered to the Duke.—St. Katherine's, 17 Sept. 1571.
1571, Sept. 17.	Notes by Cecil in the margin. 1½ pp. [Murdin, p. 95. In extenso.]
	1610. Interrogatories and Answers of Lawrence Banister.
1571, Sept. 17.	Denies having received letters from the Duke or Higford in cipher for three years, save one from Higford touching one to be delivered to Lowther for Lord Herries. Never received letters in cipher from Ligons, and was never privy to money being sent to any Lords in Scotland.
1571, Sept. 17.	1 p. [Murdin, p. 131. In extenso.]
	1611. Charles Bailey's Examination and Cipher-Alphabet.
[1571, Sept. 17].	Says he wrote no letters to the Bishop of Boss, save those in the Marshalsea which he has deciphered to Burghley. Two written in cipher Ridolfi directed, the one 30, the other 40, but what was meant by those numbers he cannot tell. They were not written in the cipher annexed, which was given him by the Bishop. Was never his secretary, one Cowper did all such things for the Bishop.—[On the next page are the characters of the cipher.]
[1571, Sept. 17].	1¼ pp.
	1612. Lord Scrope to Lord Burghley.
1571, Sept. 18.	Enclosing Richard Lowther's examination taken before himself and the Bishop of Carlisle. Has given Lowther the liberty of the city on his own recognizance of 1,000l. and those of two esquires of 500l. each.—Carlisle, 18 Sept. 1571. Enclosure,
	Examination of Richard Lowther.
	Knows nothing of letters being conveyed into Scotland through the Borders, nor where his brother Gerard Lowther is. About 20 days since he received a letter from Lawrence Banister by Edmund Turner for buying 50 stoats. His dealings with the Duke of Norfolk have been these: He was appointed Receiver of the Duke's rents in Cumberland and Westmoreland since the Duke had to do with Lord Dacre's lands, Banister being Receiver General, and has executed the office by his brother-in-law, John Richmond.
	1¾ pp.
	1613. Interrogatories and Answers of Wm. Barker.
1571, Sept 18.	1. The Bishop of Ross told him that Lords Arundel, Lumley, Montagu, and Southampton favoured Norfolk's marriage with the Queen of Scots, and would be his friends if he went through with it; of the Earl of Derby he doubted, for he was but a soft man. If aid came from Spain it should land at Dumbarton, if from Flanders, at Leith; Harwich in Essex was also named by Ridolfi to examinate.
	2. He never had communications with Alva. Last Lent he brought Ridolfi to the Duke of Norfolk, who talked with him. Ridolfi found no great good disposition in the Duke because he would not write to Alva, which the Duke afterwards told him, saying “I do not like it, nor will not write.”
	3. The Bishop told him Rolston and divers other gentlemen were practising to set the Scottish Queen at large.
	2¼ pp. In two parts, one part in Barker's hand.
	1614. The Duke of Norfolk's Note.
1571, Sept. 18.	“For discharge of his conscience the Duke of Norfolk declared unto Mr. Skip with that Ligons, his man, received of the Bishop of Ross 2,000l. sterling of the Scottish Queen's money as the said Bishop said. This was before the said Duke's first trouble. The which money he supposeth came from the Duke d'Alva, and as he thinks from King Philip. This money was delivered over by the said Ligons at divers times according to the Bishop of Ross's appointment to such uses as the said Scottish Queen would.”
	Endorsed:—“The Duke's note,” &c.
	¼ p.
	1615. Depositions of Charles Bailly and Robert Higford.
1571, Sept. 19.	Bailly says his memory is so troubled he cannot write ten words aright, and has forgotten the effect of the two letters in cipher written by him and signed 30 and 40. Thinks if shown the letters he might decipher them.
	Higford deposes that once last winter the Duke told him the Bishop of Ross needed to speak to him, and he was to bid Banister let him come through his lodging, which he did about 9 o'clock at night, and stayed an hour with the Duke in his gallery. Henry Nevill can best tell who most resorted to the Duke.
	²/3 p.
	1616. Wm. Barker's Last Confession.
1571, Sept. 19.	The Bishop of Ross always animated him that the Duke should not despair of the marriage with the Queen of Scots, as the Earls of Arundel, Derby, and Southampton, and Lords Montagu and Lumley were still friends to the cause. Details conversation with the Bishop last Lent in presence of Ridolfi, whom he brought to the Duke and to whom he delivered from the Duke a paper of noblemen's names; and with Ridolfi about the port of Harwich. After his departure the Bishop had letters from Rome that the Pope had been moved in the Queen of Scots' behalf to restore her, and that she should not. lack all that he could make. Ridolfi's mission, the Bishop said, was contrary to the course ever followed, i.e., leaving France to trust Spain. If France search of a dealing with Spain, she will hold her hand. Yet, having already made suit to the French King, the Bishop, who had been promised by him 4,000 crowns a month, would continue and hasten it.
	Ridolfi's audience with Alva. The Spanish Ambassador favourable to Ridolfi's mission, being induced thereto by the Bishop's mention of the Duke, &c.
	Marginal queries by Burghley. Part in duplicate. 10¾ pp. [Murdin, pp. 99–101. In extenso.]
	1617. Examination of John Sinclair, alias Gardiner.
[1571, Sept. 19].	He never spoke with Inglis, never knew of letters being sent to the Scottish Queen from the Duke, nor of the assurance touching them, nor ever saw the Bishop of Ross in the Duke's house. Whilst the Duke was travelling Banister had the keys thereof.
1571, Sept. 19.	Adds that there was talk among the yeomen of the house that the Duke and the Scottish Queen were assured together, that their good will remained still, and that he would marry her if he might, &c.
1571, Sept. 19.	1½ pp.
	1618. The Duke of Norfolk's Debts.
1571, Sept. 20.	Remembrances of the Auditor, Mr. Dix, moved to the Privy Council. The Lordship of Clonne is liable to forfeiture to Sir Rowland Hey ward for nonpayment of 4,100l.; also the manor of Beding, in Sussex, mortgaged to John Grodd, merchant-tailor of London, for 130l.; the manor of Wigborough, in Essex, to Wm. Watson for 125l.; and divers jewels and plate pawned for 15l. The demesnes of Holyfield and Chalveden, of the yearly value of 53l. 6s. 8d., are mortgaged to Lady North, widow, for 100l. In consideration of these debts the Duke commissioned John Blennerhasset, William Dix, and Robt. Harris to sell sundry lands, negotiations for the sale of which are pending, viz., with Mr. Pawne, for the manor of Tollesbury, in Essex, for 2,200l., with divers tenants in Sussex who have concluded for their copyhold to be made free, with others for sale of the manors of Pitsey, Wigborough, and Chalvedon. There is owing to Alderman Jackman's executors 2,150l., part of Lord Arundel's debt, which the Duke is to discharge.
1571, Sept. 20.	1¾ pp.
	1619. Sir Thos. Smith and Dr. Thos. Wilson to Lord Burghley.
1571, Sept. 20.	Report of Banister and Barker from whom they suppose to have gotten all. Banister knows little. Barker the common doer, chosen rather for zeal than for wit. The Bishop of Ross a very firebrand of sedition. Further examination of Chas. Bailly. Higford only the writer or secretary of that which otherwise was practised, no practises Sinclair or Gardner denies everything that comes out of Ireland. Being thoroughly weary with the toil the writers take their journey to the Court, where they will be, if not countermanded, on the morrow.—St. Katherine's, 20 Sept. 1571.
1571, Sept. 20.	1¼ pp. [Murdin, p. 101. In extenso.]
	1620. Examination of the Duke of Norfolk.
[1571], Sept. 21.	Interrogatories for the Duke of Norfolk, chiefly concerning Ridolphi.
	Endorsed :—21 Sept.
	¾ p. [Murdin, p. 154. In extenso.]
	1621. Answers of the Duke of Norfolk.
1571, Sept. 22.	The Duke of Norfolk's answers to the foregoing interrogatories.—22 Sept. 1571.
1571, Sept. 22.	Signed, 1¼ pp. [Murdin, pp. 154, 155. In extenso.]
	1622. Higford's Answer.
1571, Sept. 22.	Knows of no letters or conference between the Duke and other noblemen. Divers letters passed between him and Lord Lumley touching his troubles.
1571, Sept. 22.	¼ p. [Murdin, p. 73. In extenso.]
	1623. Wm. Barker's Answers to the Last Declaration.
1571, Sept. 22.	As to his speech with the Bp. of Ross last winter and since, nobody was privy thereto, but he told the Duke thereof from time to time. None were privy to the talk between Ridolfi and the Duke but himself. List of noblemen's names written on the paper. Those with whom Ridolfi most practised, and upon whom he put most trust, were the Earl of Arundel, Lord Lumley, Viscount Montagu, and the Earl of Southampton.
1571, Sept. 22.	1½ pp. [Murdin, p. 103. In extenso.]
	1624. Wm. Barker's Confession.
1571, Sept. 23.	As far as he can remember or guess, the figures 40 and 30 stood for the Duke and Lord Lumley respectively. Ridolfi read a paper to the Bishop of Ross, in French, promising to labour the King of Spain to send men into England, and also into Ireland.
1571, Sept. 23.	3 pp. [Murdin, p. 104. In extenso.]
	1625. Sir Owen Hopton, Lieutenant of the Tower, to Lord Burghley.
1571, Sept. 23.	Sends copy of “advertisements this night sent to the Duke.” “We received from you, though not at that length that was desired. Your friends at Court dare not deal. There are two ways to receive intelligence, and both I hope trusty. You shall hear this day of some things that stand you upon to be very circumspect how you do confess, for in confessing there may be much peril. Your case for anything we can learn groweth very hard, therefore standeth you in hand to comfort yourself as you may, and God comfort you. We hear not whether you have well looked on the covering of your book.”—1571, 23 Sept.
1571, Sept. 23.	1 p.
	1626. Wm. Backer's Confession.
1571, 25 Sept.	As to his last conversation with Ridolfi. If the Duke had heart or courage left in him, now was the time to show it. The Duke's answer, when told Ridolfi's speech, “Full little doth Ridolfi know, &c.” “I will not cast away myself, my children, and my friends for none of them all.”
1571, 25 Sept.	3 pp. [Murdin, p. 104. In extenso.]
	1627. Examination of Barker and Higford.
1571, Sept. 26.	Barker says he delivered to Wm. Tailer, a carpenter, at the White Lion in Aldersgate Street, a bag of the Duke of Norfolk's writings, with certain letters of the Scottish Queen, to bury till they were called for. While the Duke was in the Tower at the last insurrection, Barker was not privy to his practices with the Earls, &c.
	Higford says the Duke burnt all the letters he has received since Midsummer from the Scottish Queen after Higford had deciphered them. Deposes to their contents and the answers returned by the Duke.
	²/3 p. [Murdin, p. 107. In extenso.]
	1628. Wm. Barker's Confession.
1571, Sept. 27.	His verses written for the Bishop of Ross and shown to the Queen of Scots who wrote him a letter of thanks, &c. Ridolfi reported to the Bishop Alva's liking of his practice. The Pope's letter to the Duke that though he could not this year help the Queen of Scots he should not therefore despair. His letters two years ago to Lords Murray and Ledington.
1571, Sept. 27.	3 pp. [Murdin, p. 105. In extenso.]
	1629. Robert Higford to the Privy Council.
1571, Sept. 28.	Tendering his entire submission to the Queen, and offering explanations of his conduct.
1571, Sept. 28.	3 pp. [Murdin, pp. 73–75. In extenso.]
	1630. Banister's Declaration to Dr. Thomas Wilson.
1571, Sept. 29.	As to his proceedings from the time of the murder of Darnley till now in relation to the Duke's practices. As for being a Papist, confesses that when a student in the Temple he was affected that way, but for five years past has been of a contrary opinion.
1571, Sept. 29.	4 pp. [Murdin, pp. 133–137. In extenso.]
	1631. Lord Herbert's Declaration before the Council at Penshurst.
1571, Sept. 29.	Sent but one letter to his father, viz., on Wednesday, 29th August, since his departure into Wales, and that by one Vaughan, It concerned his marriage. At the same time he sent a letter to his uncle, Sir Charles Somerset, for a hart. Has never sent nor delivered any letter to Lord Lumley's servant, Jones.
1571, Sept. 29.	In Burghley's hand excepting the signature. ½ p.
	1632. Examination of Cuthbert Rede and Edmund Turner.
1571, Sept. 30.	Rede says he has been steward to the Bishop of Ross for one year, and before that was a scholar in Aberdeen. John Cuthbert was the Bishop's secretary and went into France before May last with one John Chessam. He never saw the Duke of Norfolk, nor knew Barker, nor carried letters between them, the Scottish Queen and the Bishop, his sole business being to provide for the house and keep the accounts. Has no skill in ciphers. Turner, Banister's servant, says he carried a letter six weeks ago from his master to Richard Lowther for cattle, as his master told him; also a letter of the Duke of Norfolk by command of his master touching an office found in the bishopric, &c. Was never acquainted with any business between Banister and the Bishop. Nicholas Grimshaw, if any man, knows thereof, as he waited upon the Duke in London.
1571, Sept. 30.	1 p.
	1633. Barker's Statement as to the purport of the letter from Mary, Queen of Scots to him.
1571, Sept. 30.	Thanks him for the verses reported to her by the Bishop of Ross. Will not be unmindful of him, nor of Banister, nor of Cantrell.—From Chatsworth.
1571, Sept. 30.	½ p. [Murdin, p. 107. In extenso.]
	1634. Wm. Barker's Statement.
1571, Sept. 30.	Cuthbert, the Scot, may be examined as to letters that passed from the Queen of Scots to the Duke of Norfolk, as to her conveying away, as to Ridolfi's doings, letters from Alva, and the Pope to the Queen of Scots, &c.
1571, Sept. 30.	1 p.
	1635. Banister's Declaration.
1571, Sept. 30.	Remembers two rings, bought by Barker for 20l. and 40l., were sent by the Duke to the Queen of Scots for tokens. Deciphered letters from her to the Duke during the time of Higford's absence. They were in number three or four, and tended altogether to matters of love. His knowledge of John Cuthbert, secretary to the Bishop of Ross.—30 Sept. 1571.
1571, Sept. 30.	1½ pp. [Murdin, p. 138. In extenso.]
	1636. Barker's farther Declaration.
1571, Sept. 30.	I have knowne long sythens y^t sola patria w^ch is y^e prince dothe chalenge to her self all dewtyes y^t appertaynith to man before parents, before kynne, before frends, or any other what so ever they be. By this rule as a morall principle agreing w^th Godd's worde I have lived. 1 have professed it publiquelie and persuaded it privatelie wherefor now in the end of my lyve to be cast w^th myn owne evidence and reprovid w^th myne owne rule yt makes my greif moche greater than other mens. For to me beside the torment of mynde is joyned this reproche Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum. To this grounded conclusion of philosophic have I joyned a sentence preceptive of Christ himself w^ch ys this Hæc oportet facere et illa non omittere the absolute authority of the Prince ys from y^e Worde of God w^ch cannot be dispensid w^th. The Princes commandment in civill things may not be omittid for Qui principi resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit. Applieing thys sentence to myn owne case the fyrst part of yt I have folowid and performyd. The latter part I labour to do, and sory am I can not do it so perticularlie as I wold wherein I have yet one thing to say. That weeke y^t my Lorde entrid into his fyrst troble Ridolphie was w^th hym, and as it appeard after had brought mony. At that time Ridolphie offrid to have talkyd w^th me but I refusid it for I had then no fancy to hym. I wold to God I had so continewed. Now all my felowes of great credit being gone, as Ligon slipped aside, Hykforde sent away, Banester and Cantrell in y^e contrie, quoniam nemini obtrudi potest ad me itur, my Lord callid for me, he told me wher the mony lay, he bad me pay presentlie to Umfry Shelton by whose helpe he had borowyd 550l. and I did so. Whan he was com[m]itted at Burnam he sent a warrant after this sort. If Barker be at Howarde House let hym deliver to y^e B. of Rosse 1,000l. when he sendith for it. If Barker be not ther, let any one in the house do it y^t know wher the mony is. I was ther and did yt. The hole summe of the mony was 2,000l. whereof the rest was thus payd as I remember, to Mr Henry Harvy 100l. by a warrant from the said Burnam, 300l. to my Lord Northe's executors, and 50l. to my Lady of Westmorland at hir comyng at one tyme and other, w^th somewhat more w^ch I do not well remember. And this is the only mony that ever I delt with, savyng whan the B. of Rosse shuld goo to Chadworthe and ackyd mony, my Lord gave hym credite w^th Ridolphie for 200l. and after for 300l. to take at his pleasure. Now I think also y^t Ligon have had 30l. more than I have reckonyd before. Thus, &c.
1571, Sept. 30.	Signed. 3 pp.
	1637. “General Interrogatories for Barker, Higford, Bannister, and Charles Bailley.”
[1571, Sept. (?).	What conference have you had with Charles or with Cuthbert, the Bishop of Ross's man? What letters hath the Duke received from Rudolphi since Rudolphi last went out of England, and what was their effect? How often has the Duke made haste for money to send into Scotland, and how did he provide for it? What have you heard of any lords or gentlemen that were determined to take London? Who made you privy that some foreign power should enter into England for the aid of the Scots, and what port was thought meetest? What conference have you had of a late enterprise for taking away the Scots' Queen? What speech have you had of a late conspiracy of rebellion in Norfolk by Throgmorton and others? Who told you that they of Norfolk should have aid of other shires or out of Flanders ? When the Duke showed you the paper of names delivered unto him by Rudolphi, what speech did he use? What liking had he of the enterprise of the noblemen and gentlemen named in that paper, and what was the effect of the enterprise?—Undated.
[1571, Sept. (?).	Draft. 3 pp.