^{page 42 note 1} Henry Donn, one of Babington's fellow conspirators, was tried with Babington and others at Westminster on the 13th and 14th of September, 1586. With them he was condemned of high treason and sentenced to death. He was executed on the 21st of September, 1586 (State Trials I. pp. 1127–1139, 1158–59). His confession as a whole appears to be lost but a summary of it will be found among the Cotton MSS. in the British Museum (Cai. C. ix, f. 381 seq.).

^{page 43 note 1} The two Abingtons, or Habingtons, Edward and Thomas, were sons of Jno. Habington of Worcestershire, who was “cofferer” to Elizabeth. Both of them were accused of complicity in the Babington plot. Edward, the elder, was named by Babington to be one of the six appointed to kill the Queen. He was tried upon the 15th of September, and after a defense in which he showed considerable skill, was convicted of high treason. On the 20th of September he was executed (State Trials, I, pp. 1146–50, 1158). His brother Thomas was not brought to trial but was imprisoned in the Tower for six years (Diet. Nat. Biog. xxiii, p. 415). The usual story is that the Abingtons were taken in a haymow near their father's house in Worcestershire. Edward indeed confessed as much at his trial (State Trials, I, p. 1148). Burghley is probably in error.

^{page 43 note 2} This “hir” looks like a slip of Burghley's pen. The sentence would make better sense if for “hir” were read “them.”

^{page 43 note 3} Pasquier was one of Mary's servants. Sir Amias Poulet, Mary's keeper, described him as “half a secretary and much employed in writing, and perchance not unacquainted with great causes” (Morris, Letter-books of Sir Amias Poulet, p. 249). Walsingham ordered Poulet, on the 25th of August, “to send him up under a sure guard…. because it is supposed he was privy to the writing of these letters that were in cipher” (Morris, p. 272). Pasquier was examined on the 2nd of September and again on the 30th, and he wrote out a confession on the 8th of October (cf. Thorpe, Scot. Cal. ii, pp. 1009–1014), but his testimony, being relatively unimportant, was never used.

^{page 48 note 1} These two gentlemen were Grooms of the Queen's Chamber.

^{page 48 note 2} Sir Fra. Knollys, Treasurer of the Royal Household, who although appointed to the commission for the trial, was not present at it (State Trials I, p. 1129).

^{page 48 note 3} Savage was one of those indicted with Babington. By his own confession he came over to England in the autumn of 1585 for the express purpose of killing the Queen, but while he delayed, the Babington plot was hatched and he was induced to give over his own plans and to become one of the six designated by Babington to perform the murder (Cf. the summary of his confession in R.O., S.P. Mary Q. of S., xix, no. 91, p. 2). He was tried, condemned and executed with the rest.

^{page 48 note 4} For some time before this the English Government had been alarmed by reports of a fleet preparing in Spain against England. The Earl of Sussex had been appointed by the Privy Council to watch the south coast. On the 9th of September he reported the arrival of a Spanish fleet at “Conquest” (Le Conquet, a small town with a good harbour at the western extremity of Brittany, not far from Brest) (Cal. Dom. 1580–90, p. 352). The Privy Council at once sent orders to him to keep close watch upon the Spaniards and to prepare the coast for defence (Acts of Privy Council, xiv, p. 216). Burghley's postcript no doubt has reference to this. He was right, the report was untrue.

^{page 49 note 1} Burghley evidently means by “execution” here, the removal of Mary from Chartley to Fotheringay. On the 25th of September Poulet wrote from Fotheringay that he had accomplished the removal (Morris, p. 293).

^{page 49 note 2} Parliament had been prorogued and was to meet again on the 15th of October. Burghley was afraid that it would reassemble before the Lords appointed to try Mary could accomplish her trial and return to London, so that the course of their proceedings might be submitted to Parliament (Cf. Burghley to Leicester, 15 Sept., 1586. Leicester Correspondence, Camden Soc. 1844).

^{page 50 note 1} This statement by Mary of her innocence was probably made to her keeper, Sir Amias Poulet. As yet, she had not been formally examined.

^{page 50 note 2} Secretary Walsingham wrote to Poulet on the 5th of September;—“I am now absent from the Court by reason of an inflammation that I have in my right leg, grown of the pain of a boil that is risen in it” (Morris, p. 286).

^{page 51 note 1} Holdenby in Northamptonshire was one of Hatton's manor houses. He had conveyed it to Elizabeth in 1571, but had received it back from her again in lease. (Baker. Northants, i, p. 195). Probably Burghley meant to write “I think we are lyk to be etc.” in place of “I think you are lyk to be etc. ”