Rome
September 1575

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

J. M. Rigg (editor)

Year published

1926

Pages

214-231

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'Rome: September 1575', Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Vatican Archives, Volume 2: 1572-1578 (1926), pp. 214-231. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=92630 Date accessed: 22 October 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

September 1575

1575.
Vat. Lib.
Urb. Lat.
1044. f. 568d.
424. News Letter.
“By the ordinary of France the news is that that secretary of the Prince of Condé had been executed with the rest taken, as it was written, on shipboard, while they were on their way to treat with the Queen of England as to placing Calais and Havre de Grace in her hands, and that the peace negotiation was still on foot; but yet it is understood that affairs are going badly for the King, his enemies being powerful, and therefore insisting on unjust demands. And in Consistory yesterday morning his Holiness made a long speech, deploring the calamities of that harassed realm, letters having also been received from Speyer dated 15 August to the effect that the Palatine is mustering a large army, and in the course of twenty days should have 6,000 cavalry and five regiments of infantry in being, for service, either in Flanders, or, as more generally believed, in France, against the Most Christian King, because two days previously the Prince of Condé came to Heidelberg, the capital of the Palatinate, with but 20 horse.”
3 September, 1575. Rome. Italian. Copy.
Vat. Arch.
Nunt. di
Spagna,
vol. viii. p. 494.
425. [Nicholas Ormanetto, Bishop of Padua,] Nuncio in Spain to Ptolemy Galli, Cardinal of Como.
Announcing that Signor En[g]helefild [Englefield] is authorized by the King to go to Rome upon the English business, if his Holiness consent to receive him. His presence there is indispensable if progress is to be made in that and the Irish business. This is the opinion of his Majesty, who is besought to make him an allowance of 500 crowns per annum. The nuncio fears that there will be no more occupation for Don John this year.
4 September, 1575. Madrid. Decipher. Italian.
Vat. Arch.
Nunt. Germ.
vol. lxxxi.
p. 379.
426. Protonotary Portia, Nuncio in Germany to [Ptolemy Galli,] Cardinal of Como.
… “In addition to the light horse the Comendador has sent two regiments of German foot towards Maestricht, to prevent devastation of the country by Condé's reiters on the way to France; who, they say, will number 4,000 and go by way of Burgundy and straight to Languedoc to join Anville [Damville]. The means of raising this cavalry has been furnished by England where Méru after prolonged efforts has succeeded in getting 450,000 crowns. The levy of cavalry made for the Most Christian King in Meissen, Thüringen, the Mark of Brandenburg and Pomerania is in being, and already Count Brocard [Burchart] of Barbi, (fn. 1) a Saxon gentleman who has a great following, is on the march.”
5 September, 1575. Augsburg. Italian.
Vat. Arch.
Nunt. di
Francia,
vol. viii. p. 512.
427. [Antonio Maria] Salviati, [late] Bishop [of S. Papoul], Nuncio in France to the Same.
… “Lord Robert [Dudley] is to come from England, in order, they say, to treat of marriage between his Queen and Monsieur. But as there does not seem to be any foundation for this, I am rather disposed to agree with those who hold that the marriage is to serve as a pretext, but that his errand is to endeavour to ascertain how affairs are going here, to get a hand in the peace negotiations, and to make believe that his Mistress is giving no aid to the rebels here.”
10 September, 1575. Paris. Italian.
Ibid. p. 556.428. The Same to the Same.
… Reporting that of all the ambassadors at Paris only those of England and Florence lodge in the suburbs; that the King has bidden both to come into the city; and that this is because in his suburb, the Englishman might be visited by many who would not dare to enter the city, besides which it is probable that he is in communication with Monsieur, which is not agreeable. Had he remained in his lodging in the Rue de la Seine he would have found it very convenient for receiving Monsieur, who would have had but to cross the river to reach his house, where he would have found all the “provisions” that he had need of. One might reckon the distance as about as far as from S. Spirito to Banchi. The English ambassador has not, however, as yet, come into the city: but the Florentine, to whom it is a matter of comparative indifference where he lodges, has done so: he, indeed, has no reason to doubt that the command is inspired only by regard for his safety.
14 September, 1575. Paris. Italian.
Vat. Arch.
Castel
S. Angelo,
Arm. xiv.
Caps. iii.
No. 6.
429. On behalf of Mary Stewart, Queen of Scots: Prospective Inquiry by examination of Witnesses.
Depositions of witnesses taken on 24 and 26 August, 1575, before us the Official of Paris, Judge Ordinary, at the instance of John Lesley, Bishop of Ross, proctor of the Most Serene Princess Mary Stewart, Queen of Scotland, plaintiff, against James Hapbourne [sic Hepburn], Earl of Bothwell, Admiral of Scotland, absent, and, as it is said, a captive in Denmark, defendant, to serve as an examination to be ready, according to the said Queen's intent, as evidence, against the said Admiral, of the contents of a Petition and Articles exhibited to us on the part of the said plaintiff, and described in our procès verbal of the production and swearing of the said witnesses, etc.:—
Wednesday, 24 August, 1575.—John Cuthbert, domestic servant of John Lesley, Bishop of Ross, of Scottish birth and two and thirty years of age or thereabouts, produced, received and sworn, etc. on Monday the 22nd inst., etc. and examined on the 24th inst. by us the Official aforesaid in the presence and with the assistance of Master Louis Joysel (fn. 2) , our actuary and scribe, bore witness, first, as to his knowledge of the parties, that it was of long standing, since, while he was in Scotland, he had been for a long time in attendance at the Queen's Court, being then in the service of John Sinclair, Bishop of Brechin, one of the Queen's privy councillors, during which time he had frequently seen the said parties at Court. Then, being questioned as to the matters alleged in the said Petition and Articles, he deposed that in the year 1565, to the best of his belief, while he was in the service of the said Bishop of Brechin, and therefore frequently at the Queen of Scotland's Court, it was rumoured and held for certain that there had been made and solemnized in the city of Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, a marriage between Lord James Hapbourne and the noble Lady Jean Gordon, daughter of the Earl of Huntly, the said marriage being solemnized by the Bishop of [the Orkneys], who, according to the better opinion, was then apostate and married and on the side of those who adhere to the pretended religion of the Huguenots. Of which marriage the said deponent has ample knowledge and certitude, seeing that thereafter he was frequently at the house and among the suite of the said Earl, and saw him with the said Lady, and sometimes saw them eat and drink together, and keep house and household together. Nay, he has heard the said Lady Gordon called Lady Bothwell, and that without any contradiction, which title was given her by reason of the lands belonging to the Earl her husband. He knows, however, neither when nor for how long the said Lord and Lady dwelt together, save that he is sure that he saw them together as man and wife for a year or more. The said deponent says that he remembers that some time after the marriage of the said Earl and Lady Jean Gordon—the year he cannot more exactly remember, but in some month of March (sic) the late Prince, Henry Stuard, Duke of Albany, husband of the said Mary Stuard, Queen of Scotland, having from Edinburgh betaken him to a house nigh to the city, in order, as it was said, that he might breathe a fresher air by reason of some disease that was upon him, was slain during the night to everyone's utter amazement and consternation; and that some there were that suspected the said Earl and Admiral of the crime, saying that he was one of the greater nobles of the country, and that the responsibility for the death of such a Prince must needs rest with the greater lords of the country, and that therefore the said Lord was in some way privy to the crime; in consequence of which rumour the said Earl put himself upon law for his vindication from the suspicion in which he stood, and so managed the business as (by what the deponent had heard) to procure an acquittal in the Court of Parliament at Edinburgh. He says furthermore that he knows full well that of the marriage of the said defunct Prince Henry Stuard and the said Mary, Queen of Scotland, there was born a male child named Charles James, whom he, the deponent, himself once saw, and who may now be eight or nine years old, and that he was suckled in the city of Stirling, and has since been brought up there, as the deponent has heard: he remembers, however, that thereafter at a time which he cannot more precisely define, while the said Queen, attended by her servants and nobles, was returning from Stirling, whither she had gone to see her son, there came to the town of Edinburgh, a squire of royal horse, named James Bothuit [Borthwick], who reported that the said Queen had been intercepted and forcibly abducted by the said Earl of Bothwell attended by armed men, and that they had made off with intent to take her to the castle of Dombart [sic Dunbar], which the said earl commanded for the Queen; and the messenger bade the citizens to get under arms and attempt to deliver the said Lady from the hands of the Earl. To which end many of that city got under arms and sallied forth, and also some engines of war were discharged from the castle upon the company of the said Earl, who on his march from the place where he had intercepted the said Queen, which was between Stirling and Edinburgh, to the said castle of Dombart [Dunbar], must needs pass by the said city of Edinburgh, and pretty close thereto; but there was no way in which the Queen could have been recovered, as was matter of common knowledge to all in the city. Being questioned, he said that he remembered that the said Queen was for some time absent from the city of Edinburgh, under constraint, it was said, of the said Earl, in the said castle of Dombart [Dunbar], but for how long a time, he could not say, nor yet whether the said Queen of Scotland is a blood-relation of the said Jean Gordon, wife of the said Earl, Admiral of Scotland, save that he had at one time heard that the grandmother of the said [Jean] Gordon was an illegitimate sister of the said Queen of Scotland's father. He had also heard, and it was matter of common talk in the said city of Edinburgh, that there had formerly been a suit betwixt the said Earl and the said [Jean] Gordon his wife, for divorce, founded, it was said, upon adultery committed by the said Earl: but whether judgment had been pronounced thereon, or to what effect he knew not. He says, nevertheless, that while the said Earl kept the said Queen prisoner, the said Lady Gordon was alive, and that he, the deponent, saw her afterwards for more than a year, and all the time that he spent in Scotland, and also a year ago he heard from one of her brothers, who was then in France and in this city of Paris, that she was still living, and also the said brother showed the deponent a letter which she had sent to him, which letter was in the said Lady's hand-writing as her said brother assured the deponent. The deponent said, furthermore, that some time after the said Queen was intercepted by the said Earl, which time, however, he could not otherwise determine, the said Lord and Lady came together to the city of Edinburgh, and some said she was still kept in captivity, while others averred, on the contrary, that she could have delivered herself from the hands of the said Earl had she so willed, that he also remembered that a convention was then held in the city of Stirling to discuss the means by which the said Lady might be got out of the hands of the said Earl, and that a levy was made of armed men, who essayed to get to Edinburgh; but when they understood the said Earl's strength, they were fain to return to the said city of Stirling. And shortly afterwards he, the deponent, was present when the said Earl wedded the said Queen in the city of Edinburgh, which marriage was solemnized by the apostate and Huguenot so-called Bishop of the Orkneys, and in the manner and form of the heretics in a room in the said Queen's palace, and in the presence of a good number of lords, for the most part heretics, but some were Catholics. Whether the said Lady made the said marriage under constraint of force, or even whether the said Earl was then predominant in the city, the deponent could not say save that some said that the consent of the said Lady was lacking thereto, and that she was coerced into it by force. Others, however, said that, on the contrary, she had consented thereto. And after the marriage they lived together for a while, perhaps a month or thereabout, as the deponent thinks, during which time there was held another assembly of the lords and other men of the country, their chief and leader being the said Queen's illegitimate brother, the Earl of Murray, for the purpose, as they said, of delivering the said Queen out of the hands of the said Earl and setting her at liberty; to which end they repaired from Stirling to Edinburgh, and took such measures against the said Earl as that there was arming on both sides and making ready for conflict; and at length the said Earl recognizing that he was overmatched, resolved to save himself by flight, and forthwith absconded from the realm of Scotland. It was, however, commonly reported that he was kept in captivity by the King of Denmark. As for the said Lady, she placed herself in the hands of her said baseborn brother, the leader and chief of those who took arms against the said Earl. This is all that the said deponent averred that he knew as to the contents of the said petition and articles after interrogation and examination touching each of them, and having affirmed his deposition to be true, he signed the same, John Cuthbert, witness in the premises.
James Curl, aforetime merchant and citizen of Edinburgh in Scotland, now an exile from his country for championing the cause of the Christian Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion, harboured and dwelling in the College of St. John Lateran in the University of Paris, being of the age of fifty-eight years or thereabout, produced, received and sworn, heard, questioned and examined as the preceding witness, deposed as follows:—First, as to his knowledge of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, he had long known her, having been receiver-general of all money owing to her in the said city of Edinburgh ever since she came, a widow by the death of her husband Francis II, King of France, to her realm of Scotland; and having discharged that function and office of receiver until her exile from the country eight years ago or thereabout: he had also known James Hapbourne, Earl of Bothwell, Admiral of Scotland, having seen him oftentimes and spoken with him as well at the said Queen of Scotland's Court as in the said city of Edinburgh. He said, moreover, that he was neither bounden nor beholden nor in debt to the parties, nor in any way interested in the matter now before the court, that he was indifferent as to the result, and only concerned that Justice should decide what shall seem to be reasonable. As to the con- tents of the said petition presented to us on the part of the said Queen of Scotland, and the articles thereto annexed, and the circumstances and all that depends thereon, he said and deposed that to the best of his memory and knowledge he knew the defunct Earl of Huntly, one of the greater lords of his country, Scotland, and also the noble Lady Jean Gordon, his daughter, the sister of the present Earl of Huntly, having frequently seen her as well in the said city of Edinburgh as in the Court of the Queen of Scotland: which said Jean Gordon was married to the said Earl of Bothwell ten or eleven years ago, or thereabout. Which the said deponent says that he knows, not for that he was present at the solemnization of the marriage, but because the affair was matter of common report and notoriety at that time, as well in the city of Edinburgh as in Scotland at large, and also because he has seen them living together alike at the Court of the Queen of Scotland as at Edinburgh as man and wife, and also has seen them so living together by the space of two years or thereabout, pending which time he also remembers that the illustrious Prince Henry Stuart, Duke of Albany, the husband and consort of the said Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, having betaken him to a house near the walls of the said city of Edinburgh, whence one can go into the country by a little gate which is therein—anyhow, being there in order, as it was said, that he might breathe a fresher air, for he had been sick,—was done to death, and in an instant the house fell to the ground in ruins; but by what means and devices that was done, he knows not, save that it was rumoured that it had been contrived by the said Earl of Bothwell. For the rest, this death occurred one night in the month of March or thereabout: the date he cannot more precisely determine. The said Earl, on learning that it was bruited about that he was the author of the said Prince's death, left no means untried to get himself declared innocent of the said crime of which he was suspected, and achieved his purpose by means of some great lords of the land, albeit he was afterwards found to have been privy thereto, and duly convicted, as the said deponent purposes more fully to depose below. He also says that some time after the death of the said Duke of Albany, which time the deponent could not exactly determine, the said Queen of Scotland, having gone from the city of Edinburgh to Stirling to see her son (whose name is James Stuard) whom the deponent has very often seen, and who may be nine years or more of age, was intercepted, as she was returning to Edinburgh, by the said Earl of Bothwell, attended by a good number of soldiers, and brought to Dumbarth [Dunbar] Castle, of which, though it belonged to her, the said Earl was then captain and governor. And this the said deponent knew, because he was then at Edinburgh, and the inhabitants of the said city then, and at the very time of the interception, were warned of the peril by a nobleman in the service of the said Queen named James Botie [sic Borthwick?], who craved aid from the city to extricate the said Lady from the hands of the said Earl; besides which he saw the Earl himself with his troops passing by the city four leagues (fn. 3) away or thereabout with the said Lady in his train, and making for Dumbarth [Dunbar] Castle which is ten leagues or thereabout from the said city: but to succour the said Queen and deliver her out of the hands of the said Earl was more than the inhabitants of the said city could accomplish. In that place and castle she spent some time with the said Earl, which is all the deponent can say about it. And at the end of that time the Earl brought her to the Palatine city of Edinburgh which he dominated by his strength in horse and foot, and there he wedded her in the heretics' form and fashion, and contrary to the ancient custom of our Mother Church of Rome, which marriage was solemnized, so it was said, by the heretic and apostate Bishop (fn. 4) , so-called, of the Orkneys; at which marriage, done, as it was, in contravention of the holy decrees and constitutions of our Mother Church, the deponent refused to be present, but would only witness the nuptial feast, at which the Queen and the said Earl eat at the same table, she being seated at the upper, he at the lower end. And the deponent says that the said Lady Jean Gordon, the said Earl's wife, was then and still is alive: this he knows because he has seen her long since the said marriage, and has heard at the time when he himself came to France, and even but four months ago that she was still living. Nevertheless, it was matter of common talk in the country, but otherwise he knows it not, that the marriage between the said Earl and [Jean] Gordon was declared to be null by the Protestant and heretical judges, who had then the administration of justice in Scotland, since the said Earl had been taken in adultery. He says, moreover, that it is notorious and certain in the realm of Scotland that the said ladies the Queen and [Jean] Gordon are of the same stock, and bloodkinship, and that the said Queen's father James V, King of Scotland, who took to wife a daughter of France in the Church of St. Mary at Paris, as he, the deponent himself, witnessed, and the grandmother of the said [Jean] Gordon, whom the said deponent knew right well, were brother and sister, but the said grandmother was illegitimate. Finally, he said that in the very year in which the pretended marriage between the said Queen of Scotland and the Earl of Bothwell was solemnized, the nobles and lords of the country rose in great force against the said Earl, saying that he was not worthy to live, and ought to be put to death, because, they said, he was the cause of the death of the late Duke of Albany, and besides had possessed himself of the person of the Queen, and by force had wedded her.
Such a coalition, indeed, was formed against the said Earl that he was compelled to take to flight and quit the country; nor has he since returned, being, as it is said, still a captive in the hands of the King of Denmark. As to the death of the said Duke of Albany, the deponent says that it is perfectly well known in the country, that some time after the death, and while the Queen, though delivered out of the hands of the said Earl, was nevertheless kept in prison in the hands of the Lord of Louthlovin [Lochleven], some of the servants of the said Earl were convicted of the assassination of the said Duke of Albany and were executed, which servants having gravely accused the said Earl thereof, he was therefore deemed convicted as author thereof. Touching the force put upon the said Queen he cannot depose as to the said Lady's inclination: but he says that it is most certain that all the time he was with the Queen the said Earl made himself stronger. And this is, &c., James Curll.
Sebastian Davelourt, (fn. 5) Keeper of the King's engines of war and the munitions of the same, in the district of Paris and the Isle de France, resident at Paris in Rue Simon François, born in the parish of Maisy-sur-Aisne in the diocese of Laon, forty years of age or thereabout, witness on the part of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, or her proctor, against James Hapbourne [Hepburn], Earl of Bothwell, produced, received and sworn yesterday the 23rd of August, 1575, in the presence of Jacques Malingre, Promoter of the Court, and on this 24th of August of the said year, heard, questioned and examined by us the Official aforesaid in the presence of our said Greffier touching the Petition laid before us by John Lesley, Bishop of Ross in Scotland, in the name and as proctor of the said Queen of Scotland, and the Articles thereto annexed, deposed that in the 1557th year, in the reign of Henry, King of the French, he crossed to Scotland, in command of a number of foot soldiers, and after some years' residence in that country took a Scotswoman to wife, and there had his home until the '68th year, when he must needs return to France because he would not desert the Most Christian King to take the side of the heretics. Nevertheless, during that time there were some years in which he had come to France, as well in the service of the Queen of Scotland as upon his own private affairs. However, he remembers that in the 1565th year it was rumoured in the city of Edinburgh and other places in the realm of Scotland that the said Earl had taken to himself and wedded the noble Lady Jean Gordon, daughter of the Earl of Huntly: he was not present at the wedding; but he says that in the said '65th year and afterwards he was often in the house of the said Earl, who in his sight and to his knowledge, treated and acknowledged the said Lady as his wife, as she in her turn acknowledged him as her husband. He also remembers that some time afterwards, and, as he thinks, in the 1566th year, the illustrious Prince Henry Stuard, Duke of Albany, husband of the said Mary, Queen of Scotland, resided for some time in the city of Glasgow, or the neighbourhood, by reason of the smallpox by which, it was said, he was attacked, purposing when he should be somewhat recovered to reside with the said Queen, his wife, in the Palace of Holy Rood near Edinburgh, in which it was said that she had already made ready his quarters against his coming, and expected him to come to the castle; but, being told by some of the magnates that were in his suite, that there was made ready for him a house in a better air and that it would be better for his health that he should repair thither, he did so; and on a subsequent night the deponent himself heard a mighty noise as of thunder, whereat he was extremely astonished. On the following morning, however, he learned the truth, to wit, that the house in which the said Lord was had been brought to the ground by an explosion of gunpowder, and the said Lord had been killed on the spot. But on the same day there was another report, to wit, that he had been found killed in a garden adjoining the said house, so that it was believed that it was not within the house that he had been killed. This house was situate in the city of Edinburgh close to the walls of the city and the church called Kirk of Fields, and pretty near the house of the Duke of Châtelherault. This house the deponent visited after its destruction. Some days later, however, it was rumoured that the death had come to pass by the counsels and contrivance of the said James Hapbourne [Hepburn], Earl of Bothwell; and some of his retainers suffered death for that crime by execution according to law; and the deponent himself saw among others one whom they called the junior lord of Tallot thus executed. (fn. 6) Thereafter the said Lady went to Stirling to see her son James, and while she was returning to Edinburgh, the deponent from the city observed in the country a great force of cavalry, which they said was under the command of the said Earl of Bothwell, who had taken the Queen, and was bringing her back by force to Dumbart [Dunbar] Castle, of which he was captain and governor. Moreover, one of the said Lady's nobles, Borthwitc [Borthwick] by name, brought these tidings into the city of Edinburgh. The truth, however, was (as the deponent himself knew) that the said Earl had brought the said Lady and all her suite into Dumbarth [Dunbar] Castle, where for a while they tarried. He remembers also that the said Earl, at the time when he took the said Queen, was served with a summons at the suit of the said Lady Gordon, his wife, plaintiff, for divorce and dissolution of marriage upon the ground of adultery committed, as she alleged, by the said Earl her husband. This he knows because he was then actuary of the “Commissariate” of Edinburgh, a court or jurisdiction which was established in place of the ecclesiastical court in which such causes were wont to be adjudged; and he had signed certain commissions and writs subsidiary to the litigation. In this cause to the best of his belief judgment was given, but nevertheless he cannot depose thereto for certain, because he had a subordinate who during his frequent absences kept the Register. The result, however, of this suit was that the said Earl of Bothwell took to wife the said Queen of Scotland who was then, as has been said, a captive in his hands. And the marriage was solemnized, as the said deponent understood, in the Palace of Holyrood near Edinburgh by the Bishop of the Orkneys, who was then an apostate holding the erroneous opinion of Calvin. For some time after the marriage the said Lady and Earl lived together, until there was an insurrection of certain of the lords and nobles with intent to arrest the said Earl of Bothwell, that justice might be done upon him as slayer of the said defunct Stuard: and then the said Earl was compelled to flee to Denmark, where he has ever since been, and still is, a captive in the hands of the King of Denmark. These matters are all that the said deponent said that he knew touching the contents of the said Petition and Articles, having been fully heard, questioned and examined therein: which deposition he affirmed to be true, and signed the same—Davelourt.
Cuthbert Ramsay, Scottish nobleman, born in Scotland, brother of Lord Dahoussy [Dalhousie], now resident at Paris, between forty-four and forty-five years of age, cited, produced, received, sworn, heard, questioned and examined as to the matters contained in the said Petition and Articles above mentioned, said that in the year 1565, James Hapbourne, Earl of Bothwell, Admiral of Scotland was wedded in the Genevan form to the noble Lady Jean Gordon, daughter of the Earl of Huntly in the church of Holy Rood, Edinburgh, by the Bishop of the Orkneys at that time a Huguenot holding the doctrine of Calvin. At which wedding he, the deponent, was present, and thereafter he saw them living together peaceably and as man and wife for two years or thereabout. And during that time the late illustrious Prince Henry Stuard, Duke of Albany, husband of the said Queen of Scotland, was slain, and, so it was rumoured, at the instigation and by the counsels and devices of the said Earl of Bothwell; and also some time after and upon account of the deed there were taken some nobles and retainers of the said Earl, with whom the deponent during their imprisonment sometimes conversed; who told him both in prison and in the very agony of death, that the said Earl of Bothwell was the prime mover of this assassination. Indeed, one of these prisoners, John Hapbourne [Hepburn] by name, told the deponent yet more, to wit, that it was he alone that saved the said Earl of Bothwell from suffocation in the house in which the said King Henry Stuard lodged, because, the train of gunpowder laid for blowing up the house not taking fire so quickly as the Earl had expected, he approached the said house with the said John Hepbourne, and thereupon the train suddenly emitted fire, and the said [John] Hepbourne marking it pushed the Earl back lest the house should fall upon him. Shortly afterwards the said Queen, attended by her household and some nobles, went to Stirling to see her son; and as she was returning to Edinburgh the said Earl of Bothwell met her near Calder Castle, about a league and a half from Edinburgh, with a good number of horse, and seized her person, and brought her to Dumbart [Dunbar] Castle. The tidings being brought to Edinburgh by one of her Majesty's nobles, James Borthuig [Borthwick], who came express to the city to demand aid from Edinburgh Castle, two cannon were discharged upon the said Earl's troops, and the city got under arms, and a sally was made to succour the Queen; but that proved to be impossible because the enemy were all horsemen and made off in hot haste, so that it was not possible to come up with them. He says besides that it is well known in the country that the said Queen of Scotland is related to the said Jean Gordon in the second and third degrees of consanguinity, because King James IV of Scotland had a son named James, who succeeded to the throne; which James V was the father of the said Mary, Queen of Scotland; and the said James IV had also a daughter, Jean Stuard, albeit she was illegitimate, who married John Gordon, eldest son of Alexander, Earl of Huntly, of which John Gordon and Jean Stuard was born George, Earl of Huntly, father of the said Jean Gordon, wife of the said Earl of Bothwell. Wherefore the said Queen and the said Jean Gordon are related, as has been said, in the second and third degrees of consanguinity. This he knows because he knew all the persons aforesaid save only James IV. He says that when the said Earl possessed himself of the person of the said Queen of Scotland, the said Jean Gordon his wife was living, as she is still, he thinks, living and in Scotland, because for a long time afterwards he saw her many times, and drank and eat in her house, nor has he heard of her death. He added that the said Earl of Bothwell, during the captivity in which, as has been said, he kept the said Lady, left no means untried to compass marriage with her; for which purpose he procured from the Protestant and heretical Judges Commissaries, who then administered justice in Scotland, a divorce between him and his wife, the said Jean Gordon on the ground of adultery, alleged to have been committed not by his wife but by himself, to which he constrained his wife to give reluctant consent, as it was commonly reported as well in Edinburgh as in other parts of Scotland and, as all men in that country know, a judgment of divorce was in fact made by the said judges upon that ground. And thereupon the said Earl took the said Queen to wife, and they were wedded by the apostate Bishop of the Orkneys in the church of Holy Rood, and thenceforth lived together until the Earls of Athol, Morlon [sic Morton], and Mar, Lord Hume and other nobles went forth to take the said Earl of Bothwell, that justice might be done upon him as the perpetrator of the assassination of the defunct Henry Stuart; whereupon the said Earl fled to Dumbart [Dunbar], and thence to places called Cathenez [Caithness] and Orquenaz [Orkneys], and thence to Denmark, where he still is in the hands of the King of Denmark. At this time the said Earl was prosecuted at law in Edinburgh, and exiled from Scotland. This the deponent knows as well by common report as because he heard the sentence published against the said Earl to the sound of the trumpet in the public street of Edinburgh.
These are the facts which the said deponent said that he knew touching the matters as to which he was produced, having been fully heard, questioned and examined thereon: which deposition he affirmed to be true. However, he declared that he could neither write nor sign it.
Friday, 26 August, 1575.—George Levingstun, Scottish nobleman, of the house of Kylsyth, now resident in the city of Paris, fifty years old or thereabout, witness on the part of the said Bishop of Ross, prosecutor, against James Hapbourne [Hepburn], Earl of Bothwell, Admiral of Scotland, defendant, produced, received and sworn on this the 26th day of the month of August, 1575, before us the Official of Paris at one o'clock in the afternoon, in presence of Master Jacques Malingre, Promoter of our Court, and on the same day heard, questioned and examined by us the Official aforesaid in presence of the said Joisel, our actuary, touching the matters contained in the Petition and Articles laid before us on the part of the said Bishop of Ross in the name and as proctor of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, said and deposed that he was very well acquainted with the said Earl of Bothwell, Admiral of Scotland, and had known him for twenty-five years and more, having often seen him in Scotland in the suite of the said Queen Mary, and also in France, in which country he was for some time, and having many a time taken meat and drink with him, as well in his house in Edinburgh as in this city of Paris. He knew that ten years ago or thereabout he was wedded to Lady Jean Gordon, daughter of the Earl of Huntly, which Lady he, the deponent, had also long known, having seen her on many and diverse occasions as well in the company of her mother as in the suite of the Queen of Scotland. He knew that that marriage was solemnized in the city of Edinburgh. The matters aforesaid he knew because he had seen the said Earl and Lady Jean Gordon take meat and drink together, and keep house as man and wife; nay, he had often heard the said Lady addressed as Countess of Bothwell in right of her husband. And he knew that after the marriage they lived together in love and peace as man and wife until his the deponent's first departure from the realm of Scotland, nine years ago or thereabout, for France. Afterwards, four years ago or thereabout, during a visit which he then made to Scotland, he saw the said Lady Gordon in the house of her brother, the Earl of Huntly, whereby he knows that the said Lady lived for some time after her said marriage with the said Earl of Bothwell: and he is rather disposed to believe that she is still living, because during his last visit to Scotland, a year or rather more ago, he heard that she was still living in Scotland and that she is akin to Mary Stuard, Queen of Scotland, he knows, because he, the deponent, knew the said Queen Mary's father, the late King James V of Scotland, who had an illegitimate sister named Jean Stuard, who married the Earl (fn. 7) of Huntly, of which marriage was born George, Earl of Huntly, father of the said Jean; and the deponent knew them all very well and was much in their society, save only the said Earl of Huntly, husband of the said Jean Stuart, whom the deponent nowhere met, as far as he remembers. He says, moreover, that these matters not only are known to him as aforesaid, but are of common report as well in Scotland as among the lords of that country who now sojourn in France. This is all that he said that he knew as to the matters touching which he was produced, having been fully heard, questioned and examined thereon: which deposition he affirmed to be true and signed the same—George le Vingston.
Patrick Myrtone, priest, Treasurer and Canon of the cathedral church of Aberdeen, born in Scotland, but resident now for a year or thereabout at Paris, whither he resorted, an exile from his country by reason of the false and erroneous doctrine of Calvin, which there prevails; seventy years, or thereabout, of age; cited, produced, received, sworn, heard, questioned and examined, as the last preceding witness, touching the Petition and Articles laid before us on the part and at the prayer of John Lesley, Bishop of Ross, in the name and as proctor of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland against James Hapbourne [Hepburn], Earl of Bothwell and Admiral of Scotland, said and deposed that for twenty years or more he had been well acquainted with the Earl of Bothwell, for he first saw him while the Earl frequented the house of his nearest kinsman, Patrick Hapbourne [Hepburn], the late Bishop of Moray, with whom the deponent was very intimate while he resided in a castle belonging to him called Spyn[i]e. He remembers that nine years ago or thereabout, it came to his hearing, and was commonly reported in Scotland, that the said Earl of Bothwell had wedded Lady Jean Gordon, daughter of the late Earl of Huntly, and that the marriage had been solemnized in the city of Edinburgh, the capital of the realm of Scotland, which marriage was matter of common knowledge throughout Scotland because the said Earl of Bothwell and Jean Gordon were sprung from the greater and more illustrious families of the country. The deponent had oftentimes seen this Lady Jean before her marriage in the company of her father, the Earl of Huntly and her mother the Countess, whom likewise the deponent knew very well. As, however, he did not frequent the house of the said Earl of Bothwell, he could not depose how long he and the said [Jean] Gordon, his wife, lived together in wedlock save by common report, to wit, that they lived together for two years or more; nor does he know whether the said Lady Gordon is still living save that he has so heard from many lords of the country living at present in France And the deponent says that he knew the said Mary Stuard, Queen of Scotland very well, and that she is akin in the second and third degrees to the said Lady Jean Gordon; and this he knows because he was acquainted with the parents and families of both; and he also knows that the said Lady Mary is the daughter of the late James V, King of Scotland, who had an illegitimate sister named Jean Stuard, who was married to one John Gordon, son of the late Alexander, Earl of Huntly; which John never had the earldom of Huntly, because he died before the said Alexander, his father. But of the marriage of the said Jean and John Gordon there was born George, who after the decease of the said Alexander, his grandfather, succeeded to the earldom of Huntly, and took to wife a daughter of the Chief Marshal of Scotland, Keth [Keith] by name, (fn. 8) of which marriage there was born and lives the said Jean Gordon. All these people, as they successively lived, the deponent knew very well, and thereby knew and knows for certain that the kinship of the said ladies Mary Stuart and Jean Gordon, is such as above stated. These matters are those which the said deponent said that he knew as to the matters touching which he was produced, having been heard, questioned and examined thereon: which deposition he affirmed to contain truth and signed the same—Patrick Myrtone, Scottish priest.
Master John Melvill, priest, Bachelor in Theology, native of Scotland, Province of Mernia [Mearns], resident for the last two years in this city of Paris, whither he repaired because he would not adhere to the erroneous opinion of Calvin, which to-day they profess in all the realm of Scotland, sixty-two years of age, cited, produced, received, sworn, heard and examined, as the two immediately preceding witnesses as to the contents of the Petition above mentioned, &c., said and deposed that it is now the tenth year, or thereabout, since, while he, the deponent, was in Scotland, it was matter of common bruit in the country that the Earl of Bothwell and Admiral of Scotland had been wedded to Lady Jean Gordon, daughter of the Earl of Huntly, which bruit was great throughout all the realm because the said Earls of Bothwell and Huntly were among the greater lords of the land. This marriage the deponent believes, on the strength of the common bruit aforesaid, to have been duly solemnized, though he was not present at the ceremony. How long the said pair lived together as man and wife he could not depose: but as to the kinship of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, and the said Lady Jean Gordon the said deponent said that James V, King of Scotland, father of the said Lady Mary had an illegitimate sister named Jean Stuart, who was married to John Gordon, son of Alexander, Earl of Huntly; and the said couple John and Jean had a son named George, who succeeded his grandfather the said Alexander in the said earldom of Huntly, and by his marriage with Elizabeth Keth, daughter of the Great Marshal of Scotland, was father of the said Lady Jean Gordon, wife of the said Earl of Bothwell. The matters aforesaid the deponent knows because he was very well acquainted with the persons above mentioned except the said illegitimate Lady Jean Stuart and the said John Gordon, her husband. Besides which there is the universal notoriety thereof in the realm of Scotland, and he has ever heard say that the said Lady Mary Stuart is related in the second and third degrees of consanguinity to the said Lady Jean Gordon. Of the matters as to which he was interrogated these were those which he knew; and he affirmed his deposition to be true, and signed the same— Master John Melvill, Scottish priest.
Certified by the Official of Paris, Judge Ordinary aforesaid, as a prospective examination justly and lawfully made according to the rules of procedure in ecclesiastical causes, and possessing all the force, strength, authority and credibility appertaining to a prospective examination secured under the seal of the Court by the actuary, Louis Joysel, who is also to make translations of the said depositions with all possible accuracy and transmit them under seal of the Court to the Bishop of Ross at Rome.
Signed—Lecourt and Joysel.
22 September, 1575. Paris. Latin. Vellum. Seal.
Vat. Arch.
Castel
S. Angelo,
Arm. xiv.
Caps. iii. No. 7.
430. Process and Articles in the cause of the marriage of the Queen of Scotland before the Official of Paris.
By the Official of Paris, Judge Ordinary, &c.:—
Be it known that the Reverend Father in Christ, John Lesley, Bishop of Ross, proctor of the Most Illustrious Princess Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, laid before the Reverend Father in Christ, the Lord Bishop of Paris, and us his Official and Judge Ordinary, on the 20th of August, of the present year, 1575, a Petition, in which, in the name of the said Queen of Scotland, he craved permission to make prospective examination of witnesses whom he was about to produce touching the facts, and the Articles annexed to the said Petition and with the said Petition laid before us; which Petition and likewise the said Articles were written in French, but at our instance, that they might be transcribed and included in the present instrument, they have been as exactly as possible, sense for sense and word for word, translated by the actuary of our Court, Master Louis Joysel, to the effect following:—
Petition of John Lesley, Bishop of Ross, in the name and as proctor of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, to the Reverend Father in Christ, the Lord Bishop of Paris, or his Official:—Whereas it is of importance to the said Queen of Scotland, who at present is in England, to make a prospective examination of witnesses against James Hapbourne [Hepburn], Earl of Bothwell and Admiral of Scotland, prisoner in the realm of Denmark, and the said Queen fears that either by reason of death or absence or some other contingency it may prove impossible for the witnesses on her part to be heard by way of inquest, or otherwise, and whereas at present a good number of them are in this city and diocese of Paris, may it please you in consideration hereof to decree that the said petitioner may make the said prospective examination before you or your said Official, in view of the gravity of the case, and upon the facts submitted to you with the present petition, and to direct that there be made for the said petitioner your letters of citation of witnesses and other needful letters. Signed—John, Bishop of Ross.
Articles annexed:—
The matters to be proven are as follows:—1. That in the year 1565[-6] the said James Hapbourne [Hepburn], Earl of Bothwell, Admiral of Scotland took to wife per verba de presenti the noble Lady Jean Gordon, daughter of the Earl of Huntly, and thereafter for the space of two years or thereabout lived peaceably and conjugally with her as his true wife.
2. That pending this time the illustrious Prince Henry Stuart, Duke of Albany, husband of the said Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, was slain by the counsels and contrivance of the said James Hapbourne [Hepburn], Earl of Bothwell and Admiral of Scotland.
3. That shortly afterwards, the said widowed Queen of Scotland having with her household and train of nobles gone to see her son James, Prince of Scotland, at Stirling, the said James Hapbourne [Hepburn], Admiral, attended by a great company of soldiers came upon the scene, and intercepted her on her return from Stirling to Edinburgh, and seized her person and took her to Dumbart [Dunbar] Castle, and there kept her captive with all her train of nobles and servants, who had no means of resisting the said Admiral's military retainers.
4. That the said Queen of Scotland is akin to the said Jean Gordon, wife of the said Admiral, in the second and third degrees. 5.
That the said Jean Gordon, wife of the said Admiral, was then, as she still is, living and resident in Scotland.
6. That notwithstanding that the said Jean, wife of the said Admiral, was living, and besides was akin to the said Queen of Scotland in the second and third degrees, the said Admiral was so carried away by passion as to determine to wed the said Queen of Scotland, whom he kept in captivity, and to compass that end by any means in his power.
7. Wherefore he procured of the Protestant and heretical judges, who at that time administered justice in Scotland, a divorce between himself and the said Jean Gordon, his wife, upon the ground of adultery committed not by his wife, but by himself, the Admiral.
8. That after the divorce thus effected he took to wife the said Queen of Scotland against her consent and will, she being a captive in his armed hands, and thus a prey to utter terror, and with none to aid or counsel her. For which purpose he brought her before Adam, the apostate Bishop of the Orkneys, and in his presence took her to wife in the manner and form observed by the heretics, and quite contrary to the holy decrees and ceremonies of the Catholic and Roman Church.
9. That the nobles of the realm of Scotland, being apprised of the fact, and being unable to brook such ravishment and captivity of their Queen, nay, rather, being minded to set her at liberty, as it was said, demanded that justice should be done upon the said Admiral: which caused him to flee from the realm of Scotland; and now he is in fact an exile and a captive in the realm of Denmark.
10. That the facts and articles aforesaid are true and matter of common report, as well in France as in Scotland. Signed— John, Bishop of Ross.
Decree accordingly on the said 20th of August in terms of the Petition, and that the Promoter of the Court be summoned for the production, &c., of witnesses, and that all matters be communicated to him.
Letters mandatory issued 21 August, 1575, for the production of the witnesses and the Promoter of the Court. Signed—Joysel.
In pursuance of the said letters the following witnesses to be cited: to wit, James Curl, John Cuthber[t], George Liuistun [Livingstone], John Mesleua [sic Melvill], priest, Master Patrick Myrtone, Cudebert [Cuthbert] Ranisey [Ramsay], Sebastian Davelou[rt]. Signed—M[artin] Ogier [Notary].
11. Averment on 22 August by the Bishop of Ross, present in person, as proctor of the Queen of Scotland, that he had caused the said John Cuthbert, James Curl, Sebastian Davelourt, Cuthbert Ranisey [Ramsay], George Levingstun and Patrick Myrtone and John Melbbel (sic) priests, to be summoned to appear to testify to the truth of the matters contained in the said Petition and Articles, and likewise the said Jacques Malingre, Promoter of the Court, to see to the production, reception and swearing &c. of the said witnesses.
Production accordingly of John Cuthbert and James Curl, who are forthwith sworn, heard and examined, the following day being appointed for the production of the rest.
12. Production on 23 August by the Bishop of Ross of Sebastian Davocourt [sic Davelourt] and Cuthbert Ranisey [Ramsay], who are forthwith sworn, heard and examined, the 26th of August being appointed for the production of the remaining witnesses.
13. 26 August.—The said witnesses, to wit, George Livingstun and Patrick Myrtone and John Melbbel, priests, produced and sworn, heard and examined.
14. At the instance of the Bishop of Ross, representing that it is necessary for him to exhibit the depositions to the Pope, who is the only competent judge in the matter, certificate and decree by the Official Judge Ordinary that all things in this matter have been lawfully done, and that the prospective examination has the force, authority and credibility pertaining to a prospective examination made according to law, and that the depositions, translated by the actuary as closely as may be [from the French into the Latin tongue] and secured under seal of the Court, are to be transmitted with this procès verbal to Rome.
22 September, 1575. Paris. Latin. Seal.
Signed
—Lecourt and Joysel.
Vat. Arch.
Nunt. di
Spagna,
vol. viii. f. 517.
431. Nicholas Ormanetto, Bishop of Padua, Nuncio in Spain to Ptolemy Galli, Cardinal of Como.
Announcing that his Majesty had notified him through the Bishop of Cuenca that instruction was being sent to the ambassador [at Rome] to communicate his answer as to the Irish business, which he therefore makes no doubt has been done.
26 September, 1575. Segovia. Decipher. Italian.

Footnotes

1 Cf. Archives de la Maison d'Orange-Nassau, Table des Matières.
2 Perhaps a scion of the Béthencourt family. See Negotiations, Lettres et Pièces Diverses relatives au Règne de François II. (Docc. Inédd. sur l'Hist. de France), 1841, p. 746.
3 Cf. p. 224, infra.
4 Adam Bothwell.
5 Cf. Cal. State Papers, Foreign, 1566–8, pp. 178, 473; Cal. State Papers, Scotland, ed. Bain, vol. ii. pp. 423, 626.
6 John Hay, the younger, of Tallo.
7 Cf. p. 227 infra.
8 George, 4th Earl of Huntly, married 27 March, 1530, Elizabeth Keith, daughter of William, Earl Marischal. Scots Peerage, vol. iv. pp. 533, 536, 539.


<--Previous:
Rome:
August 1575