the 6th November, 1571, and a part of it was read as follows:

He saith, That he remembreth that at Hampton'Court, upon a report made by Robert Melvill that this Examinate had gone about a matter of a marriage ⚫ with the Scottish Queen for himself, he took himself 'to be much wronged, and desired to have the matter ex'amined, for that he had not dealt in that matter; and 'doth not remember what the Queen's Majesty said unto ' him at that time: at which time he said for himself, that 'he intended no such thing, nor meant any such thing, ' and yet he confesseth that he did not at that time declare 'to the Queen's Majesty of any speech that had been ' used unto him by Ledington at York, and the Earl of Murray at Hampton Court, touching the said marriage. Being at Titchfield, the Queen's Majesty called him to her gallery, asking him, "Whether he had dealt any'wise for the marriage of the Queen of Scots, as it was ' reported ?" Whereunto he answered, "He thought her Majesty had heard by others." But she willed him to 'declare the truth, because she had rather hear it of himself: and so he declared, "that he had received letters 'from her; that the matter had been moved and written ' unto her; but he had not made any conclusion in that matter with her." Whereupon her Majesty showing ' herself to mislike thereof, commanded and charged him 'that he should not deal any further therein with the Queen of Scots, nor any other person in that matter: 'but that he was charged upon his allegiance, he doth 'not certainly remember; but that he was straitly commanded, he doth well remember.'

Then was read a part of the Duke's Declaration*, dated the 10th of November, 1571, as follows:

'At Titchfield, in the gallery, it pleased her Majesty 'to call me, and there used such speech, or to that effect ' as I remember, as I have confessed in my Examinations; and upon calling myself to memory, I think her "Highness did charge me with my allegiance to deal no 'further with the Scottish cause.'

Serjeant. Thus have we proved that at Titchfield the

Harl. MSS. No. 5353,

Queen's Majesty expressly commanded my Lord of Norfolk upon his allegiance, not to proceed in that marriage with the Scottish Queen: now, if we prove that in opposition to this commandment, and against his own promise, he afterwards still proceeded much more earnestly than before; and this notwithstanding that he had all the while conceived an evil opinion of the Scottish Queen, and thought her plainly guilty of abominable adultery and murder; and also, that he made no account of her kingdom of Scotland, and thought it not comparable to his own dukedom; he cannot have prosecuted this marriage in respect of her person, but of some other thing (probably the Crown of England) which he hoped to attain under her pretended title. You never saw her, you could not then be carried with love of her person; you had conceived an ill opinion of her, so could you not be led with love of her; her kingdom of Scotland you esteemed not, both because she had it not in possession, and for that it was not of so good value as your own possessions were. To what end then did you pursue the marriage? to no other end, surely, but to advance and maintain her false and pretended title to the Crown of England. If further we shall plainly prove, that after your departing from the Court, you meant to prosecute the marriage with force against the Queen in her own realm; then it must needs be with intent to cause her Majesty's deprivation and destruction, and so high treason, within the compass of the Statute of 25th Edward III. For whoso shall take upon him to prosecute and maintain a title to the Crown by force against the Queen, and within her own realm, must needs make account that the Queen must and will resist that force; if, then, that unlawful force should overcome the rightful Prince's force, what is likely to ensue? there must needs follow deprivation of the lawful Queen, and thereupon her death and destruction; for it must ever be intended that the jealousy of an usurper by force can in nowise suffer a rightful prince to live*. Now to prove your in

*It is remarkable, that even Chief Justice Brooke, who compiled his Abridgment of the Law during the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Mary, when constructive treasons were most pre

tention to pursue the marriage with force against the Queen, we shall show that in your journey towards London from Titchfield, you entered into a conference to take the Tower of London, and to have kept the Tower by force against the Queen, and so to have brought the marriage to pass by force. But it took not effect, for the Queen's Majesty having understanding thereof before, provided for enforcing the place with new supply; and Mr. Pelham, Lieutenant of the Ordnance, was for that purpose put in with sufficient power. Afterwards, being at your own house, the Charter-house, the Queen's Majesty, understanding of these attempts, sent for you; whereunto you made a feigned excuse of sickness, so that for four or five days you could not journey, promising after those four or five days to wait on her Majesty, according to your duty; and immediately after this excuse sent, the same night you stole away into Norfolk, and there intended to have levied force; but that the Queen's Majesty and her Council suspecting your purpose, had secretly sent into those parts before, and taken order for thwarting your intention. All this we shall now set forth in evidence

Here was produced the Letter to the Queen's Majesty, from York, in October 1568, signed by the Duke, the Earl of Sussex, and Sir Ralph Sadler; a part of which was read, as follows:

'Afterwards they showed unto us an horrible and long letter of her own hand (as they say), containing ' foul matter, and abominable to be either thought of, or

valent, doubts whether a design to deprive the King of his Crown be within the Statute of Treasons; "because," he says, very sensibly, "one may deprive the King of his Crown without designing his death." "Therefore," he adds," a statute was passed expressly for this case."-See Brooke's Abr. tit. Treason, pl. 24. The law at the present day is perfectly clear from difficulty upon this subject, the Statute 36 Geo. III. c. 7, having enacted, that every person who shall compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maim or wounding, imprisonment or restraint of the person of the King, or to deprive or depose him, shall be deemed and adjudged to be a traitor.

to be written by a Princess, with divers fond ballads of 'her own hand; which letters, ballads, and other writings 'before specified, were closed in a little coffer of silver and gilt, heretofore given to her by Bothwell. The said letters and ballads did discover such inordinate and filthy love, between her and Bothwell, her loathsomeness ' and abhorring of her husband that was murdered, and 'the conspiracy of his death, in such sort as every good ' and godly man cannot but detest and abhor the same. And those men here do constantly affirm the said letters ' and other writings, which they produce of her own hand, 'to be her own hand indeed, and do offer to swear and to 'take their oath thereupon; as indeed the matter con'tained in them being such as could hardly be invented or devised by any other than by herself; for that the dis'course of some things, which were unknown to any ' other than to herself and Bothwell, doth the rather per'suade us to believe that they be indeed of her own hand'writing. And as it is hard to counterfeit so many and so long letters; so the matters of them, and the manner 'how these men came by them is such, as it seemeth that God, in whose sight the murder and blood of the inno'cent is abominable, would not permit the same to be hid or concealed. In a paper herein inclosed, we have noted to your Majesty the chief and principal points of their letters, written (as they say) with her own hand, to the ' intent it may please your Majesty to consider of them, and so to judge whether the same be sufficient to con'vince her of the detestable crime of the murder of her • husband; which in our opinions and consciences, if the said letters be written with her own hand (as we believe 'they be), is very hard to be avoided.'

Duke. This maketh for me; for this proveth that I, so much misliking her, and signifying by my letter so much against her, dealt not for the marriage when I was at York, where this letter was written.

Serjeant. There were others joined with you in the letter, so that you could not otherwise write, however you otherwise dealt: but this maketh much against you, for it proved you had an evil opinion of her, and so could not seek the marriage in respect of her person, but

only in respect of her false title to the Crown of England. Now you shall, to the same end, hear your own report against her to Bannister.

Duke. Bannister was shrewdly cramped when he told that tale. I beseech you let me have him brought face to face.

Serjeant. Bannister was no more tortured than yourself.

Then was read part of Bannister's Confession*, dated September 29th, 1571, as follows:—

I confess that I, waiting on my lord and master when 'the Earl of Sussex and Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy 'that now is, were in commission at York, did hear his 'Grace say, that upon examination of the matter of the 'murder, it did appear that the Queen of Scots was 'guilty, and privy to the murder of the Lord Darnley, her late husband.'

Serjeant. This showeth that you had an evil opinion of her, and so no affection to her person; therefore your seeking of that marriage was for another respect; and for that respect Ledington, Rosse, and you practised the withdrawing of the charge against her at York.

Duke. They broke it to me. What is this to me? Did I consent?

Serjeant. They say plainly, that you practised to withdraw the things that might charge her.

Duke. Ledington broke it to me, and the Earl of Murray broke it to me. I pray you, let them be brought face to face to me: I have often required it, and the law I trust is so.

Serjeant. The law was so for a time, in some cases of treason; but, since, the law hath been found too hard

* Murdin's State Papers, p. 133. Notwithstanding the positive denial of the fact by Serjeant Barham, this confession of Bannister was made after the torture had been applied to him, as the Duke intimates. The letter of Sir Thomas Smith to Lord Burleigh, dated the 20th of September, 1571, expressly reporting that Bannister had been racked, will be found in Murdin's State Papers, p. 101.