^{page 12 note 1} The embassy of the Bishop of Amiens and the Baron de la Brosse was not quite so vicious an affair as Elizabeth here makes it out to have been. The bishop and his colleague were, in fact, sent out of France by Mary and her husband, the French King, to bring the Scottish rebels back to their allegiance by peaceful means if possible. They landed in Scotland on the 24^th of September, 1559 and they set to work at once, but they seem to have accomplished nothing, either for good or evil.

^{page 13 note 1} The Scottish lords who went to France to ratify the marriage treaty between Mary and the French Dauphin, one and all took strangely sick upon their departure from France (Sept. 1558). Three of them, indeed, died at Dieppe. No doubt they were poisoned but whether by accident or design is impossible to establish (Lang, Hist, of Scotland, ii, p. 43). The circumstance however was certainly suspicious and gave ground for such a charge as Elizabeth makes here.

^{page 13 note 2} There is no clear proof that the Lords of the Congregation actually contem plated the deposition of Mary although they may very well have had such a project in mind. They certainly desired to match Arran with Elizabeth. Sir James Crofts at Berwick heard rumors of this desire in June, 1559 (Cal. Scot, i, p. 215). The formal proposal was not made however until early in December, 1560 (Ibid. p. 495).

^{page 14 note 1} This claim of Elizabeth has more justification. Throgmorton's correspondence for the year 1567 in the Scottish Calendar (vol. ii, passim.) goes far towards substantiating it.

^{page 15 note 1} Manuscript torn.

^{page 15 note 2} This version of Elizabeth's behavior towards Mary in consequence of her flight into England is hardly substantiated by other evidence at hand. No doubt Moray, the leader of the Protestant party in Scotland pleaded for a hearing, but Elizabeth conducted the examination as it pleased her, and though she did not allow the investigation to proceed to a judgment, she did nothing to raise the suspicions against Mary. There are some grounds for believing that Mary's commissioners were not anxious to have the investigation proceed too far (cf. Knollys to Cecil, Oct. 9, 1568. Cal. Scot, ii, p. 523), but no other evidence to support Elizabeth's declaration that she had let the matter drop at the earnest solicitation of the Bishop of Ross.

^{page 15 note 3} This is substantially the truth. The proceedings against Mary in the parliament of 1572 will be found in D'Ewes (p. 207 seq.). Parliament was anxious “to touch the Scottish Queen as near as her life” for her complicity in the Norfolk plots. A bill was introduced in the House of Commons to that effect but stopped by the Crown before it had passed. A second bill (cf. Appendix I), was then brought in to exclude Mary from the succession to the English throne. This bill passed both houses, but Elizabeth never gave her assent to it.

^{page 16 note 1} It is to be observed that this “extraordinary favor” is omitted in the Record Office copy. As a matter of fact it appears that the idea of transferring Mary to Scotland “to be dealt with” originated with Elizabeth herself, and was not carried out, for the simple reason that Morton would not undertake to deal with Mary on his own responsibility, and Elizabeth refused to share the responsibility with him (cf. Henry Killigrew's Correspondence, Sept, 1572 et seq. Cal. Scot, iv, p. 418 seq.).