No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009
Though the materials for the reigns of Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth are very completely known, occasional sidelights may be thrown on this period from minor sources which have hitherto escaped notice. At Oxford, for example, there is a large number of manuscripts which have been little used. It is the object of this paper to give some indication as to their nature and relative importance. An exhaustive account is here impossible. As a rule the manuscripts described are inedited, but references to exceptions are given in the footnotes. At the outset, it must be confessed that the new information disclosed is neither large nor of great intrinsic value, yet nothing which will add to the primary sources of a period is unworthy of notice.
page 120 note 1 MS. Ashmole, 1729Google Scholar, f. 5 r. I have to thank Mr. R. T. Gunton, the keeper of the archives at Hatfield, for information as to the handwriting of the Hatfield MS. The body of the document was no doubt written by a clerk, and the King signed it at the foot. The Hatfield MS. is printed in full in Nicholls, J. Gough's Literary Remains of Edward VI (Roxburghe Club), i. 57–59Google Scholar, and in Haynes, 's Burghley State Papers (1740), p. 74Google Scholar, and calendared in Cal. Hatfield S.P. (Hist. MSS. Com.), 1883, i. 65–6.Google Scholar The Bodleian manuscript has a few verbal differences from the Hatfield copy, the most important being ‘Quenes maters’ for ‘Quenes Majesty’ (Haynes, , p. 74, 1. 3Google Scholar), and ‘I asked Chek whether it were good to wright and he said no’ for ‘Cheke sayd afterwards to me, ye were not best to wright’ (ibid., 1. 6).
page 120 note 2 The original, written in Elizabeth's neat Italian hand, is in MS. Ashmole, 1729, f. 6.Google Scholar It is printed for the first time in the appendix to this paper (below, p. 157). Two other letters, written by Elizabeth to the Protector, which contain one or two phrases identical with those of this letter, but are dated February 21 and March 7, are printed in Ellis, 's Original Letters, 1st series, ii. 153–5, 155–8.Google Scholar For her confession, see Cal. Hatfield S.P. i. 67.Google Scholar This matter is discussed at length and several of her letters printed in Strickland, , Lives of the Queens of England, London, 1851, vi. pp. 20–47.Google Scholar
page 121 note 1 MS. Tanner, 90, ff. 157–169.Google Scholar This is an original, and is dated Feb. 1, 1548/9.
page 121 note 2 The full narrative, with the title ‘A description of the city of Exeter, and of the sundry assaults given to the same,’ as in Holinshed (ed. 1587, 1007–1028), is in MS. Ashmole, 762Google Scholar (printed, Exeter, 1765, 4°). A somewhat shorter version of the portion dealing with the rising of 1549 is in MS. Rawlinson, C. 792Google Scholar, entitled ‘The beginning, cause, and course of the commotion or rebellion in the counties of Devon and Cornwall in … 1549.’ Vowell's ‘worthy actions’ among the Exeter muniments, and an abstract of his narrative, are given in MS. Gough, Devon, 2. ff. 127–131Google Scholar, under the heading ‘Observations taken out of Mr. Hooker's booke that is kept in the chamber at Exon.’ The same volume also contains an original rental of Exeter. See also D.N.B. xxvii. 288Google Scholar; Gross, , Bibliog. Mun. Hist. Art., 1571Google Scholar, and Rose-Troupe, Frances, The Western Rebellion of 1549, London, 1913, Appendix D.Google Scholar
page 122 note 1 The translation was not printed. The original manuscript is in MS. Tanner, 421.Google Scholar It was dated ‘At Redgrave this New Yeares day morninge 1584[/5].’ At the end is the note: ‘Translatum Redgrauiae per Thomam Corbold opus viginti dierum per vacuas horas a praeceptoria functioned
page 122 note 2 For the Oxford disputations see MSS. Add. C. 197Google Scholar; Bodley, 28Google Scholar; and for a similar debate at Cambridge see MS. Raivlinson, D. 1326.Google Scholar
page 122 note 3 MS. New College, cccxvii.Google Scholar
page 122 note 4 MS. Tanner, 90, ff. 151–2.Google Scholar These are two leaves evidently taken out of the original registers of the company.
page 123 note 1 MS. Rawlinson, B. 102.Google Scholar This is a copy made about 1600 by John Guillim, in a volume of collections for his Display of Heraldry. Evidence of dating is given in Wood, 's Athenae Oxonienses (ed. Bliss), ii. 299.Google Scholar This account of the embassy does not appear in any of the chronicles (Holinshed, Grafton, Wrothesley, &c.), nor in the narratives of the rebellion printed in Pollard's Tudor Tracts, and apparently has never been printed. For Wyatt's rebellion see also MS. Tanner, 90, ff. 193–7Google Scholar, of which f. 196 is a circular letter under the Queen's signet, January 27, 1553/4, for levies to oppose the Duke of Suffolk and his brethren (printed in the Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary, Camden Society, vol. 48, p. 186Google Scholar). There is an undated copy in the P.R.O. (Cal. S.P. Dom., 1547–1580, p. 57).Google Scholar
page 123 note 2 MSS. Carte, 57 and 58.Google Scholar See the manuscript Cal. of Carte Papers in the Bodleian Library, 1485–1558.
page 123 note 3 MS. Carte, 78.Google Scholar They were not printed in the Epistolae Reginalds Poli (5 vols., Brescia, 1744–1757)Google Scholar, nor are they noticed in A. Zimmennann's Kardinal Pole. They are printed by me in the Eng. Hist. Rev., 07, 1913, pp. 527–531.Google Scholar
page 124 note 1 Cobbett, , Parl. Hist. i. 661–664Google Scholar; D'Ewes, 's Journal, p. 46.Google Scholar
page 124 note 2 Cal. S.P., Foreign (1559–1560), No. 325Google Scholar; Ibid. (1560–61), Nos. 324, 636 (3), 802, 1017; Cal. S.P. Dom. (1547–1580), pp. 140, 144, 157–8Google Scholar, in which, however, the editor has confused Eric with his brother, Duke John. Geijer, Hist, of the Swedes (trans. by. Turner, J. H.), pp. 141–149.Google Scholar See also Burgon, 's Life of Sir Thomas Gresham, i. 312–315.Google Scholar The popular dread of the evils of a foreign marriage is strongly put forward in a sermon of Larimer's before Edward VI (Latimer's Sermons, Parker Society, 1844, p. 91).Google Scholar
page 124 note 3 There are two MSS. of this work in the Bodleian Library, viz. MS. Ashmole, 829, f. 1Google Scholar, sqq., and MS. Tanner, 84, ff. 263–334.Google Scholar The writer of the article on Smith in the D.N.B. (liii. p. 125)Google Scholar gives the date of composition as 1560—the year after its author was in attendance on John, Duke of Finland; but it was most likely composed after September 1561, when the arrival of Eric in England was daily expected (Spanish Col., 1558–1567, pp. 211–13Google Scholar; Haynes, , Burghley State Papers, 370–1Google Scholar). This is proved by the following sentence from the introduction to Smith's treatise: ‘Nom afresh the rumor of the King of Sweden's Ericus, coming hether (for, as ye knowe, by the death of his father Gostave yt began to be staide) was renewed againe, and that of many he was undoubtedly looked for to come himself hether into Englande … to be a wooer to her majestie.’ There are several other MSS. of the discourse besides those referred to in the D.N.B., viz. B.M. Harl. MSS. 252Google Scholar, arts. 9, 28; 1130 art. 2; Trinity Coll. Dublin MS., 801, 2.Google Scholar See also Hist. MSS. Com., 5th Rep. App. 363.Google Scholar It is printed in Strype, 's Life of Smith (London, 1698), pp. 78–84, and App. iii.Google Scholar
page 125 note 1 Commons' Journals, i. 63–64Google Scholar; D'Ewes, , 81.Google Scholar
page 125 note 2 Egerton Papers (Camden Society), p. 34.Google Scholar
page 125 note 3 D'Ewes, , 75.Google ScholarProthero, G. W., in E.H.R. ii. 741–6Google Scholar, gives reasons for considering that the extant versions of petitions presented in this and the following Parliaments; with the Queen's answers, are merely different versions of the petition and answer of 1563.
page 125 note 4 A copy of what purports to be the petition of this Parliament is in MS. Tanner, 79, ff. 8–10.Google Scholar It is printed in D'Ewes, 105. For the proceedings in Parliament relative to these matters see Commons' Journals, i. 74–77Google Scholar; Lords' Journals, i. 638–640Google Scholar; D'Ewes, , 116–117.Google Scholar
page 126 note 1 MS. Rawlinson, D. 718.Google Scholar There is another copy of this work, but without the dedication, in MS. Rawlinson, D. 1122Google Scholar, under the name of Sir W. M[ildmay?]. The original is in the British Museum, Lansdowne MSS., 238, ff. 63–79Google Scholar, but no author's name is given. The whole tone of the work shows that it was written during the early years of the reign. In the first Rawlinson copy the name Roger Andrews is appended to the dedication, but it is impossible to identify him with the Roger Andrews who became Chancellor of the diocese of Chichester, February 23, 1607/8, and was still alive in 1625 (Neve, Le, Fasti, ed. Hardy, , i. 261, 271; ii. 430, 437).Google Scholar
page 127 note 1 A copy of the full proceedings in this trial and the verdict of the Court is in MS. Tanner, 84, ff. 105–197.Google Scholar This is a volume of transcripts made about the middle of the reign of Charles I.
page 127 note 2 It was printed in 1563. Manuscript copies of the work in Bodley's Library are MS. Tanner, 304, ff. 42–49Google Scholar; MS. Carte, 105, f. 83Google Scholarsqq.; and MS. Ashmole, 829, ff. 32–42Google Scholar; and in the British Museum, Cottonian MSS., Julius, F. vi. ff. 409–422.Google Scholar There is an abstract by ‘A. G.,’ said to be written November 6, 1599, in MS., Jones, 32, ff. 82–87Google Scholar, in the Bodleian, and another in MS. Tanner, 79, ff. 24–28Google Scholar, under the name of ‘Richard Madox.’ See also Hist. MSS. Com., 4th Rep., Ap. p. 371.Google Scholar This treatise was circulated in manuscript during the reign of Elizabeth, as the number of extant copies testifies; in 1713 it was published as an appendix to Harbin, 's Hereditary Right of the Crown of England.Google Scholar
page 127 note 3 D.N.B. ii. 368–9Google Scholar; Haynes, , State Papers, p. 412Google Scholar; Wood, , Athenae Oxonienses, i. 405.Google Scholar
page 127 note 4 Haynes, , State Papers, pp. 413–415.Google Scholar Examination of John Hales April 25 and 27, 1564.
page 128 note 1 A. F. Pollard, in Longman, 's Political History of England (vol. vi.), pp. 326, 347.Google Scholar
page 128 note 2 Spanish Calendar, 1558–1567, p. 297.Google Scholar
page 128 note 3 Both Hales's treatise and Browne's reply were printed in 1723 by a Nathaniel Boothe, but wrongly attributed to Sir Anthony Browne and Sir Nicholas Bacon respectively (see B.M. Catal, printed books, s.v. Browne, Anthony). This error has caused much confusion; even the writer of the article on Nicholas Bacon in the D.N.B. (ii. 368–9)Google Scholar repeating it. There are manuscript copies of the two treatises in the same contemporary hand in B.M. Harl. MSS., 537 and 555Google Scholar, part of Hales's treatise being bound in one volume, and the rest, with Browne's reply immediately following it, in the other.
page 128 note 4 25 Edw. III. c. 1. It ought to be noted, however, that the statute declared definitely that the king's children could inherit in England wheresoever they were born.
page 129 note 1 A manuscript of this treatise—which bristles with citations from ancient, mediæval, and contemporary authorities, both legal and historical —is in MS. Rawlinson, D. 1122.Google Scholar It is possibly one of the works referred to at the opening of [Browne's?] treatise on the same subject (MS. Rawlinson, A. 134Google Scholar), vide infra, note 2.
page 129 note 2 These two treatises are in MS. Rawlinson, A. 124, ff. 1–47, 47–58Google Scholar; while there is another copy in the B.M. Harl. MSS. 849.Google Scholar On the flyleaf of the Bodleian MS. a note in a later hand states that the book was supposed to have been written by Sir Anthony Browne in 1566; but probably this has been confused with the reply to Hales's book mentioned above.
page 130 note 1 Egerton Papers, pp. 41–49.Google Scholar There is a manuscript copy in the Bodleian in MS. Carte, 105, ff. 70–74.Google Scholar
page 130 note 2 At the end of an abbreviated version of Doleman's treatise on the succession (vide infra, p. 135, note 3Google Scholar), printed in 1655, there is an inadequate list of books written on this subject during the reign of Elizabeth. However, it includes a treatise in favour of James VI of Scotland, by Robert Heghington, secretary to the Earl of Northumberland; and another treatise in favour of the Dukes of Parma, as next heirs of claims made on behalf of the royal house of Portugal. Other treatises are mentioned in Murdin, , State Papers, p. 20Google Scholar, vide infra, p. 131Google Scholar, note 4; see also a short list at the end of Harbin, 's Hereditary Right.Google Scholar
page 130 note 3 See a tract entitled ‘Allegations in the behalf of the high and mighty princes, the Lady Marie now Quene of Scots, against th' opinions and bookes set forth in the parte and favour of the Ladie Katherin and the rest of the issues of the French Quene towching the succession of the Crowne.’ The copy in MS. Ashmole, 829, ff. 43v–54rGoogle Scholar is taken from a printed book, and is dated ‘20 Marcii i565[/6].’ The same fear of civil war is also shown in a reply, entitled ‘Allegations against the surmised title of the Quene of Scots and the favourers of the same’ (Ibid., ff. 54r–62v). Other manuscripts are in the B.M. Addit. MSS., 34, 216Google Scholar; Cottonian MSS., Calig. B. ix. f. 250.Google Scholar This tract was printed in December 1565. See Scott, J., Bibliography of Works relating to Mary Queen of Scots (Edinburgh Bibliog. Soc. 1896), No. 37.Google Scholar This is followed in the same volume by ‘a copie of an aunswer to a litle booke [i.e. the foregoing treatise] herein mencionad’ (MS. Ashmole, ff. 62v–67rGoogle Scholar). For other manuscript copies of these treatises see Hist. MSS. Com., 2nd Rep., App. 43Google Scholar; 3rd Rep., App. 185; 4th Rep., App. 208, 371; and 10th Rep., Ap. iv., 4.
page 131 note 1 MS. Ashmole, 829, f. 67r.Google Scholar
page 131 note 2 This is one of the ‘allegacions against,’ &c. (Ibid., ff. 54r–62v).
page 131 note 3 MS. Ashmole, 829, ff. 67–71.Google Scholar This is a copy of a letter to some person who had evidently taken a prominent part in the discussions of Parliament, warning him not to go farther into the matter, and especially not to support the writer of the book in which the above argument is used. Discussion was made treasonable by Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 1.
page 131 note 4 D.N.B. xxxiii. 97–8, xlv. 171Google Scholar; Watt, , Bibliog. Brut. (Edinburgh, 1824), vol. ii.Google Scholar S.D. ‘John Leslie’; Murdin, , State Papers, pp. 14, 20.Google Scholar He declared at his examination, October 31, 1571, that Thomas Bishop (one of the intermediaries between himself and the northern earls) had made the book, and that he had merely made some alterations. He also refers several times to a work by Caryll, a prominent lawyer, and to Hales's treatise and its refutation. Further, a book against the proposed match between the Queen of Scots and the Duke of Norfolk, supposed to have been written by one Sampson, ‘a preacher,’ was mentioned at the same examination. There is a copy of the tract in MS. Carte, 105, ff. 76–78.Google Scholar See also Scott, , Bibliog., Nos. 61, 62, 73, 74, 115, 137.Google Scholar In MS. Carte, 105, ff. 16–65Google Scholar, there is a reply to a republication of Ross's book in 1584. For other replies see Hist. MSS. Com., 5th Rep., Ap. p. 363Google Scholar; 6th Rep., Ap. p. 350.
page 132 note 1 See title-page to pt. ii. in the Liège edition, 1571. It is stated here that the work was written in 1567, the year in which Sir Anthony died.
page 132 note 2 Commons' Journals, i. 94–97, 101–2Google Scholar; Lords' Journals, i. 721, 723, 728Google Scholar; D'Ewes, , 202, 221, 224.Google Scholar
page 132 note 3 See a discourse on this marriage by Sir Nicholas Bacon, dated 1570, Egerton Papers, pp. 50–59.Google Scholar
page 133 note 1 Egerton Papers, pp. 78–80.Google Scholar
page 133 note 2 There are two MSS. in the Bodleian—namely, MSS. Douce, 46 and 259.Google Scholar Another copy is in the B.M. Harl. MS. 180Google Scholar, art. 2, with a reply by Lord Henry Howard; ibid., art. 3, and Additional MSS. 34216, fi. 27–43.Google Scholar
page 133 note 3 Steele, R., Tudor and Stuart Proclamations, i. No. 740.Google Scholar
page 134 note 1 D.N.B. xvi. 112–121Google Scholar; xliii. 418.
page 134 note 2 Leycester's Commonwealth was printed in 1584 and 1641. Its original title was ‘The copie of a leter, wrytten by a Master of Arte of Cambridge to his friend in London … about the present state and some proceedinges of the Earle of Leycester and his friendes in England, conceyved, spoken …,’ &c. It was in the form of a dialogue. In the Bodleian Library there is a manuscript of the earlier portion (pp. 1–116 of the 1584 edition) in MS. Jones, 32, ff. 1–72.Google Scholar Another portion of the work (pp. 128–164) follows as if it were a fresh work, with the title ‘A treatise of the succession of the crown of England’ (MS. Jones, 32, ff. 72–81Google Scholar). The dialogue form is dropped and the work considerably abbreviated. An abstract of this part of the work is in MS. Ashmole, 829, ff. 71–73Google Scholar, under the title ‘The process of the discent of the Houses of York and Lancaster.’ Other MSS. of ‘Leycester's Commonwealth are in Rawl. D. 9, 10, and 719.Google Scholar As the writer of this libel favoured the Queen of Scots, it was anticipated that Leicester would use his whole force to do her harm,—T. Morgan to Queen of Scots, 1585/6, January 15 (Murdin, , pp. 456–457Google Scholar; Cal. Half. S.P. iii. 129).Google Scholar
page 135 note 1 Spanish Calendar, 1580–1586, pp. 562–4, 581, 590–1, 644, 647 (February to November, 1586).Google Scholar
page 135 note 2 For example, see letter of Card. Arnaud d'Ossat to Henry IV of France on the designs of Spain and the Pope for marrying her to Cardinal Farnese, and securing their succession (B.M. Stowe MSS. 155, f. 18).Google Scholar
page 135 note 3 It was published under the pseudonym of ‘Doleman.’ There is a manuscript copy in MS. Rawlinson, D. 167Google Scholar, written in a neat but very minute contemporary humanistic hand. It lacks the large genealogical tree appended to the printed edition.
page 136 note 1 MS. Tanner, 50, ff. 128, 129.Google Scholar On the back, in another hand, are notes of several sums of money received, January 22, 1569[/70], probably as fines.
page 136 note 2 MS. Dodsworth, 49, f. 55Google Scholarsqq. It is taken from the document called ‘Humbertson's Survey’ (P.R.O. Excheq. K.R. Misc. Bks. 37, 38Google Scholar), quoted in Miss R. R. Reid's paper in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, N.S., vol. xx. 176–201.Google Scholar
page 136 note 3 MS. Tanner, 237, ff. 12v–25vGoogle Scholar; MS. Bodley, 966, pp. 220–288.Google Scholar
page 136 note 4 MS. Tanner, 50, ff. 130–2Google Scholar. The examination of Bishop, printed in Murdin, , State Papers, pp. 214–17Google Scholar, is dated May 5, 1572, and contains answers under twenty heads. The Tanner manuscript consists of twelve answers. See also Cal. Half. MSS. pt. ii. p. 17.Google Scholar
page 137 note 1 MS. Perrott, 8, ff. 93–97.Google Scholar It is dated, in a different hand, January 1584[/5], long after the additions to the Treason Laws, which the author traces back to the Imperial Ban, the leges de laesa maiestate, and the legality in Hebrew Law of vengeance taken by the nearest relation of a murdered man.
page 137 note 2 In MS. Ashmole, 862 (ff. 235–245)Google Scholar, there is a copy of this account of the trial, taken from the autograph copy said to be a ‘MS. penes Roberti [sic] Sherell.’ It is printed in SirNicolas, Harris's Life of William Davidson, Appendix, pp. 330–349.Google Scholar
page 138 note 1 MS. Ashmole, 829, ff. 160–207Google Scholar; MS. Rawlinson, D. 63.Google Scholar In the Camden Society, vol. 93 (1866), pp. 67–134Google Scholar, is printed a justification of Elizabeth's proceedings against the Queen of Scots—an example of the official tracts circulated by the Government in connexion with the great trials of the reign. This justification also reiterates what was declared on Elizabeth's behalf against Davidson in the Star Chamber. The editor of the volume refers to three MSS. of this tract; there are two more in the Bodleian, viz. MS. Add. C. 83Google Scholar (incomplete); MS. Tanner, 108.Google Scholar
page 138 note 2 MS. Douce, 393, ff. 24, 26.Google Scholar They are printed in the Appendix, pp. 158, 159.
page 138 note 3 MS. Tanner, 84, ff. 202–217Google Scholar; D.N.B. xix. 268.Google Scholar At a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries, March 26, 1857, Mr. J. Bruce read a paper on this work, based upon an imperfect transcript in B.M. Harl. MS. 168Google Scholar, art. I, in which he stated that his inquiries at Oxford and Cambridge and elsewhere had failed to discover a complete copy (Gentleman's Magazine, 1857, i. 602Google Scholar; Proceedings Sac. Antiq. iv., 1857–1859, p. 48Google Scholar; Archaeologia, 1857, xxxvii. 351–361Google Scholar). The imperfect copy is printed in Archaeologia, loc. cit. In the Tanner copy there are 8 ff. after the point where the B.M. copy ends.
page 139 note 1 Steele, R., Proclamations, i. No. 537.Google Scholar
page 139 note 2 Supra, p. 135Google Scholar; MS. Rawlinson, D. 167, ff. 56–63.Google Scholar
page 139 note 3 But on very doubtful grounds, according to MrLaw, T. G. (D.N.B., xliii. 418)Google Scholar. A copy of this tract and an answer to it are in MS. Corpus Christi College, CC., f. 30Google Scholarsqq. Another copy, dated 1592, is in MS. Add. C. 304B, ff. 1–15. It is endorsed in a later hand ‘A slanderous invective against the state and some particular persons many yeares past.’
page 139 note 4 There are several papers relating to this in MS. Rawlinson, D. 1047.
page 139 note 5 A seventeenth-century copy of the trial is. in MS. Bodley, 966, pp. 509–512.Google Scholar This trial is not included in Howell, 's State Trials.Google Scholar
page 140 note 1 MS. Ashmole, 1729, ff. 101–2Google Scholar, dated 1600[/1], February 18.
page 140 note 2 MS. Rawlinson, D. 1048. ‘A breefe relacion of severall speeches uttred by some of the counsell on Friday the xiiith of Februarye 1600[/1].’ In the same volume are copies of Essex's well-known apology, and two undated letters; one from Lord Keeper Egerton to Essex, the other from Essex to the Lord Keeper.
page 141 note 1 Acts of P.C., N.S. xxxi. 153, 159, 162–3Google Scholar; Cal. Carew Papers (1601–1603), pp. 35–39Google Scholar; copies of the proceedings at the trial of the Earls of Essex, Southampton, and Rutland are in MS. Bodley, 966Google Scholar, as well as an account of the former's execution. These narratives are not the same as those in Howell, 's State Trials.Google Scholar See also MS. Ashmole, 1729Google Scholar, and MS, University College, clii.Google Scholar There are several manuscript narratives at Oxford of the State Trials of the reign; but they are of little value, because, where they differ from the versions in Howell, they are usually shorter. See especially MS. Bodley, 966Google Scholar; MSS. Ashmole, 767, 830, and 862 (p. 229)Google Scholar; MS. Willis, 58Google Scholar; MS. E musaeo, 55Google Scholar; MS. All Souls, ccviii.Google Scholar; MSS. Corpus, cclv., ccxcviiiGoogle Scholar.; MS. Queen's, cxxi.Google Scholar (See Coxe, H. O., Catalogas codicum MSS. Coll. Oxon.)Google Scholar
page 141 note 2 MS. Tanner, 79, ff. 14–15.Google Scholar This paper is written in a seventeenthcentury hand; it is printed from a manuscript in the British Museum (Harl. MSS. 286, f. 248Google Scholarsqq.) in Nichol, 's Progresses of Queen ElizabethGoogle Scholar, 1st ed. ii., sub anno 1591.Google Scholar The author was John Davies.
page 142 note 1 See miscellaneous copies and lists of State Papers in MSS. Rawlinson, D. 814, 1087Google Scholar; Tanner, 77, 115Google Scholar; Ashmole, 1729Google Scholar; Carte, 88, 96Google Scholar; Rawlinson Letters, 77Google Scholar; Queen's College, xxxii.Google Scholar There are also some originals, e.g. MS. Douce, 393Google Scholar; MS. Engl. Hist. C. 34Google Scholar; MSS. Carte, 55–58Google Scholar (vide infra, p. 147).Google Scholar The Douce manuscript contains a large number of original papers, among which are twenty letters of the years 1570–1593 dealing with meetings and assemblies of Anabaptists, lands of fugitives, musters, assizes, and levies of men for service in the Low Countries. See also Rep. on the Public Records, 1800, p. 348.
page 142 note 2 MS. Ashmole, 829, ff. 210–217.Google Scholar There is another copy in B.M. Harleian MSS., 253, ff. 143–152Google Scholar, dated December 3, 1571. An extract is printed in Raumer, F.'s Contributions to Modern History (trans. 1836), pp. 202–6.Google Scholar See also For. Cal. 1569–1571Google Scholar, Nos. 2174, 2187, 2202; Walsingham's Diary in Camden Misc., vi. 13.Google Scholar
page 142 note 3 MS. Add. C. 82 (01 1577/1578 to August 1578)Google Scholar; Rawl. A. 331 (05 1577 to January 1577/8).Google Scholar The latter has been edited by O. Ogle (Roxburghe Club, 1866). These MSS. are mentioned by Mr. A. F. Pollard in the bibliography of Longmans, ' Political History, vi. 489.Google Scholar
page 143 note 1 MS. Bodley, 966, pp. 487–493.Google Scholar
page 143 note 2 Cal. S.P. Dom., 1581–1590, pp. 615–621, 628, 645Google Scholar; Ven. Cal., 1581–1591, No. 903.Google Scholar
page 143 note 3 MS. Tanner, 50Google Scholar, contains a few transcripts; MS. Tanner, 78, f. 88Google Scholar, translation of letter from the Czar to Elizabeth, December 1585; MSS. Ashm. 1538–1539, 1784–6Google Scholar (six original letters in Russian from the Czar to Elizabeth).
page 143 note 4 MS. Ashmole, 1729, f. 28.Google Scholar
page 143 note 5 MS. Tanner, 79.Google Scholar For these missions see also Hakluyt's Voyages (ed. Glasgow, 1904), v.Google Scholarpassim, vi. 58, and Ven. Cal., 1581–1591, passim.Google Scholar
page 143 note 6 MS. Ashmole, 830Google Scholar; see also MS. Tanner, 79, f. 53, for particulars of ships under Drake in September 1585.Google Scholar
page 143 note 7 MS. Tanner, 77, f. 95.Google Scholar
page 144 note 1 MS. Tanner, 79, ff. 48–52Google Scholar, originals; cf. Ven. Cal., 1581–1591, Nos. 855, 856Google Scholar, where there is a report of the movements of the English squadron down to June 14, said to be obtained from ‘a good source.’ Cf. letter from Sir Fr. Drake and Sir J. Norris to Privy Council printed from Talbot Papers, i., f. 3Google Scholar, in Lodge, 's Illustrations of British History, ii. 359–366.Google Scholar
page 144 note 2 MS. Rawlinson, D. 657.Google ScholarCf. treatise on Ireland, attributed to Gerrard, in Hist. MSS. Com., 2nd Rep., App. 40a (Calthorpe MSS.).
page 145 note 1 ff. 90–160.
page 145 note 2 Acts of P.C., x. 235, 236.Google Scholar
page 146 note 1 He was assisted in his historical investigations into the origin of cess by Sidney (D.N.B. xxi. 226–7).Google Scholar According to this article, at the instigation of the Viceroy's council, Gerrard drew up a report on the state of the country and proposals for reform in 1577, which were placed before the Privy Council. It is possible that the Bodleian manuscript is an elaboration of this earlier report.
page 147 note 1 MS. Rawlinson, A. 237, ff. 37–40.Google Scholar
page 147 note 2 MS. Engl. Hist. C. 34.Google Scholar This petition, which is incomplete and undated, is written on two very large sheets of parchment. It traces the history of the rebellion from the creation of O'Neill's father Earl of Tyrone by Henry VIII, to its suppression by Sir Henry Sidney, along with an historical disquisition on the conquests of Ireland from the remotest times, in support of the title of the English sovereigns to that kingdom.
page 147 note 3 See MS. Carte, 58.Google Scholar
page 147 note 4 MSS. Carte, 55–58.Google Scholar There are also some Fitzwilliam Papers extending over the years 1561–1575 in MS. Carte, 131.Google Scholar See the manuscript Cal. of Carte Papers in the Bodleian.
page 147 note 5 D.N.B., xix. 232–5.Google Scholar Mr. R. Dunlop, the writer of this article and of the article on Ireland in the Cambridge Modern History, iii.Google Scholar, has used the Fitzwilliam Papers.
page 147 note 6 Russell and Prendergast's report on the Carte Papers, 1871, p. 22.Google Scholar
page 148 note 1 Russell and Prendergast's introduction, Cal. S.P. Ir., 1603–1606, Ixiv.Google Scholar
page 148 note 2 MS. Carte, 58, f. 1.Google Scholar
page 148 note 3 Ibid. This volume covers the years 1561 to 1570.
page 148 note 4 Ibid., 57 (1569–1574).
page 149 note 1 MS. Carte, 56, f. 131.Google Scholar
page 149 note 2 Ibid., 56 (1571–1576); 55 (1574–1596).
page 149 note 3 MS. Perrot, 1.Google Scholar This volume was given to the Bodleian in 1727 by Thomas Perrot, of St. John's College, Oxford. It is mentioned in the Report on Public Records, 1800, p. 348. On the outside of the binding is written in a contemporary hand ‘The letters of Sr. John Perrott, Id. deputye of Irelande, to the Queene and her cheife ministers of State.’
page 150 note 1 MS. Rawlinson, D. 1031Google Scholar, cf. MS. Lansdowne, 72Google Scholar, art. 8, and Hist. MSS. Com., 3rd Rep., Ap. pp. 51, 367. The life of Perrot was printed by Rawlinson in 1728 from an original MS. by an unknown author, written about the end of Elizabeth's reign. He obtained the MS. from Ireland and returned it thither when he had finished with it (vide Rawlinson's preface).
page 150 note 2 MS. Rawlinson, D. 754.Google ScholarCf. P.R.O. Declared Accounts, Pipe Office, Army (contractors), Nos. 165–8, and ‘Early Army Accounts,’ by Hubert Hall in the Antiquary, 08 1880.Google Scholar The captain of each company or footband of 100 men was given a lump sum, according to the weeks of service. Lists of these captains are given here, also the captains of ‘Wardens’ raised to protect the crops.
page 150 note 3 MS. Engl. Hist., C. 34 (p. 11).Google Scholar The version printed in the Cal. S.P. (Ireland), 1599–1600, pp. 150–153Google Scholar, is dated Nonsuch, Sept. 14, 1599, and has many different readings—some important ones. They are not always to be preferred, e.g. Cal. S.P.: ‘ex jure proprio judicarie’; Bodl. MS.: ‘ex ore proprio iudicare.’ In this volume (p. 13) there is a copy of the opinion of a council of war, dated August 21, 1599, Dublin Castle (Cal. S.P. Ireland, 1599–1600, pp. 126–7)Google Scholar, to which is annexed a list of provinces, number of counties, size, etc., and their calculated yield by taxation, if reconciled to the Queen.
page 151 note 1 MS. Rawlinson, A. 237.Google Scholar There are also some entries for the years 1561 and 1562. This is said to be a copy of a volume in the Paper Office, indorsed in golden letters ‘Ireland 1560,’ of which the original contained 194 pages. I have been unable to trace this original in the calendars of Irish State Papers or the Lists and Indexes published by the Record Office.
page 151 note 2 MS. Rawlinson, A. 317Google Scholar (a very large original volume of 384 ff., being the fifth ledger of his accounts).
page 151 note 3 MS. Engl. Hist. C. 34, p. 7Google Scholar (a large piece of parchment cut at the bottom like an indenture).
page 151 note 4 Ibid., p. 9.
page 151 note 5 MS. Carte, 61, ff. 1–7Google Scholar, which I have printed in Engl. Hist. Review, 01 1914, pp. 104–17.Google Scholar
page 152 note 1 MS. Rawlinson, B. 479Google Scholar, ff. 94–102. A marginal note says that it was ‘olim inter codd. Jac, Waraei 52; postea comitis de Clarendon 6.’
page 152 note 2 Bagwell, , Ireland under the Tudors, iii. 117–8, and 118note.Google Scholar
page 153 note 1 The writer of this paper is preparing a monograph dealing with these treatises.
page 153 note 2 MS. Laud. Misc. 683, ff. 128–148.Google Scholar The treatise is written in a. neat sixteenth-century bookhand, with red border-lines and red lines between the lines of writing.
page 154 note 1 MS. Jones, 17.Google Scholar This manuscript is not mentioned in D.N.B., xxxix; 287–8Google Scholar, among the very miscellaneous works of Thomas Lupton. In this article the only facts given about his life are that he was a Puritan and alive in 1583. If any inference may be drawn from the work now under consideration, it would seem that he was most likely a Lincolnshire man and interested in the cloth industry.
page 154 note 2 Cf. benefactions for providing gratuitous loans to young apprentices, mentioned in Cunningham, English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times, pt. i. p. 145.Google Scholar
page 154 note 3 See D.N.B., loc. cit.
page 155 note 1 MS. Jones, 17, ff. 201–9.Google Scholar One part of the original is in the Record Office Museum (G. 70). See also State Papers, Dom., Eliz., v. 5Google Scholar (a letter from the Queen to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor, July 15, 1559).
page 155 note 2 Ibid., S. 259–263. These are the orders and rules drawn up by Burghley, the Bishops of London and Norwich, and others. Notes of the lands left by Cordell on behalf of the hospital ‘lately’ erected in Suffolk are dated circa 1581 (?) in Cal. S.P. Dom. (1581–1590), p. 37.Google Scholar
page 155 note 3 See Summary Catalogue of Western MSS., nos. 29152, 29293, 30706; MS. Corpus Christi College, cclxxi.Google Scholar (Churchwardens' Accounts, 1541–1656, Oldstock, co. Hants).
page 155 note 4 MS. Tanner, 50, ff. 16–17.Google Scholar These leaves were formerly pp. 28–30 of some volume—perhaps part of a register of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who apparently conducted this inquiry.
page 156 note 1 MS. Ashmole, 770Google Scholar, ff. 1–50. Black's catalogue mentions two other less complete MSS. of this chronicle: (1) B.M. Cottonian MS. Vesp. E. xvi. art. 2; (2) a MS. in the possession of Dean Addison when Wharton published his Anglia Sacra.
page 156 note 2 MS. Rawlinson, C. 886, pp. 1–209.Google Scholar It is all written in the same hand —an untidy scrawl, differing little in character from the usual sixteenthcentury hand. It was probably compiled about the date of the last entry and perhaps written by an old man.
page 157 note 1 MS. Top, Oxon, d. 47.Google Scholar
page 157 note 2 MS. Engl. Hist., C. 24, pp. 173, 183–185.Google Scholar
page 157 note 3 MS. Ashmole, 1729, f. 6.Google Scholar
page 157 note 4 ‘Not’ cancelled.
page 158 note 1 Endorsements: (i) In Elizabeth's hand: ‘To my verey good Lorde my Lorde Protector.’ (ii) In another contemporary hand: ‘The Lady Elizabeth vi° Februarii 1548[/9] to my L.P.’
page 158 note 2 MS. Douce, 393, f. 24. 1584, 08 1.Google Scholar
page 159 note 1 —Dec. 13. MS. Douce, 393, f. 26.Google Scholar This appears to be an incomplete letter, as at the head of the single leaf on which it is written is the figure 3.