The following Letter of warrant from Queen Elizabeth, permitting the TORTURE to be applied to the Duke's servants, Barker and Banister, is somewhat curious. It is remarkable that the body of the Letter is in the hand-writing of Lord Burghley. That the Torture was applied seems certain. Two days subsequent to the date of this Letter, Sir Thomas Smith writes thus to Lord Burghley from St. Katherines, respecting Barker's, Banister's, and the other examinations. "I suppose we have gotten so much as at this time is like to be had : yet tomorrow do we intend to bring a couple of them to the Rack, not in any hope to get any thing worthy that pain or fear, but because it is so earnestly commanded to us. As for Barker, I thynk he hath and will confess so much as his wit will serve him; and yet, as it appeareth, hath been the most doer betwixt the Duke and other foreign practisers. Banister is somewhat obstinate, but little he knoweth. We send you his, Barker's, Higford's, and Charles's examinations more than you have had already. I pray you trust that tomorrow we will do what we can do.". ELIZABETH R. By the Quene. as RIGHT trusty and welbeloved we grete yow well, and fyndyng in the traytoroos attempts lately discovered that nether Barker nor Bannister the Duke of Norfolks men have uttred ther knolledg, nother will discover the same without torture; forasmuch the knolledg herof concerneth our suerty and estate, and that they have untruly allredy answered, We will and by warrant herof authoriss you to procede to the furder examynation of them uppon all poynts that that you can thynk by your discretions mete for knolledg of the truth. And, they shall not seme to yow to confess playnly ther knolledg, than we warrant yow to cause them both, or ether of them, to be brought to the rack: • Murdin's State Papers, p. 95. and first to move them with feare therof to deale playnly in ther answers, and if that shall not move them than yow shall cause them to be putt to the rack, and to find the tast therof untill they shall deale more playnly, or untill yow shall thynk mete. And so we remitt the whole procedyng to your furder discretion, requiryng yow to use spede herin and to require the assistance of our Lieutenant of the Toure. Gyven under our signet the xvth of Septemb. 1571. To or trustie and right well beloved Counsellors Sr. Thomas. . yth K. and to o'. . . . tie and welbeloved Doctor .. son one of the Masters of our Requestes. Indorsed Receaved at the Towir the LETTER CCI. Queen Elizabeth to Lord Burghley, to stay the execution of the Duke of Norfolk. A. D. 1572. [MS. MUS. ASHMOL. OXON. Orig. ENTIRELY IN THE QUEEN'S HAND.] Carte informs us, from Fenelon's Despatches, that Queen Elizabeth revoked no fewer than four warrants for the Duke of Norfolk's execution. "Having signed, on Friday, February 8th." he says, 66 a warrant for the Duke's execution the next day, she countermanded it about eleven at night; and having signed another on February the 27th, revoked it the next morning, two hours before day. Two other warrants were afterwards signed, the last of them on Thursday April 10th; but both revoked in the same manner". The last Letter of revocation was the one which is now placed before the Reader. And My Lord me thinkes that I am more beholdinge to the hindar part of my hed than wel dare trust the forwards side of the same, and therfore sent to the Levetenant and the S., as you knowe best, the Ordar to defar this execution till theb here furdar. that this may be done I doubte nothing, without curiositie of my further warrant, for that ther rasche determination upon a very unfit day was countermauned by your considerat admonition. The causes that move me to this ar not now to be expressed, lest an irrevocable dede be in mene while committed. If the wyl nides a Warrant, let this suffice, all written with my none hand. Your most lovinge Soveraine Indorsed in Lord Burghley's hand. ELIZABETH R. xj. Ap1. 1572. The Q. Maty with hir own hand, for staying of the Execution of the D. N. Rat 2 in the Morning. Carte ascribes these successive revocations of the Duke of Norfolk's execution to dissimulation on the part of the Queen, till the House of Comb they. ■ Carte, vol. iii. pp. 525, 526. mons by a violent address should sanction her severity. Hume seems to doubt whether she might not really have been moved by friendship and compassion toward a peer of the Duke of Norfolk's rank and merit. And he is perhaps supported by Lord Burghley himself, who, in a Letter to Sir Francis Walsingham, who was then our ambassador at Paris, dated June 9th, 1572, intimates that the Queen was "SOMEWHAT SAD" at the Duke of Norfolk's death. He says, " As to your Letters to her Majesty, for as much as the Duke of Norfolk had suffered upon Monday and your Letters came on Tuesday, I thought not amisse to tell the Queen's Majesty that I had Letters from You to Her, which I thought were onely to shew her the opinion of wise men and her Majesty's well willers in France, both for the Scottish Queen and the Duke of Norfolk; whereupon she bad me open the Letters, and so I did in her presence, and she being sOMEWHAT SAD for the Duke of Norfolks death, I took occasion to cut off the raging thereof, and so entered into speech of the Queen of Scots, which she did not mislike, and commended your care and diligence". The Duke of Norfolk was the first nobleman who was beheaded in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, LETTER CCII. Sir Nicholas Bacon to Lord Burghley. [MS. LANSD. 14. art. 79. Orig.] A few Letters now present themselves, illustrative of the feelings of some of Queen Elizabeth's subjects when they heard that her Majesty had vouchsafed to honor them with a Visit during her Progresses: from which it will be readily gathered how inconvenient to many these Progresses must have been. The chronological order which has hitherto been strictly observed in these Volumes, is a little trespassed upon here, that the various Letters on the same subject may be brought together. Lord Keeper Bacon, it will be seen, rejoiced much at the report that her Majesty intended him so great an honor; but owned himself quite a novice in receiving Royalty. The Earl of Bedford thought two nights and a day quite sufficient for the Visitation at Woburn; and hinted to Lord Burghley that he had made preparation for no longer time. Harl. MS. 260. fol. 250. Archbishop Parker was one of the few who seemed thoroughly pleased at one of these intended Visits. A thought struck him to make it subservient to the promotion of the Protestant Religion. His Letter will be read with peculiar interest. Lord Leicester writing to the Earl of Sussex in 1577 says, "We aH do what we can to persuade” her Majesty “ from any Progress at all.” It is quite evident that the Queen was fickle: and frequently gave but short notice of what part of the Country she chose to visit. Lord Buckhurst, who expected to receive her Majesty at Lewes in 1577, was so forestalled, in respect of provisions, by other noblemen, in Sussex and the adjoining counties, that he was obliged to send for a supply from Flanders. When Mr Hickes, Lord Burghley's Secretary, was married, the Queen hinted that she would honor him. Hickes wrote to a friend at Court to ask the Lord Chamberlain what preparation he should make, evidently fearing the expense. The Lord Chamberlain's advice was, to go out of the house and leave it to the Queen. He simply wished that Mrs Hickes should present her Majesty with some trifling present. But the Letters will speak for themselves. It is not generally known, that much as these Visits sometimes put the Queen's subjects to expense, the cost of them to the public Treasury was also a matter of deep concern. Lord Burghley's calculations upon this subject, fairly amounting to a remonstrance, are still extant. Among the Lansdowne Manuscripts in the Museum, Num. 16. art. 52. is "An Estimate of increase of Chardgies in the time of Progresse which "should not be if her Majestie remeynid at her Standing Howses within 66 xx. myles of London; collected out of the CREDITORS of the last Pro66 gresse Anno xvto. Regina Elizabeth." A. D. 1573. It is altered and corrected in Lord Burghley's hand. The increase of charges caused by the Progress appears to have amounted in the whole to £1034. Os. 6d. Lord Burghley, it is probable, would have been personally glad if the Progresses could have been altogether dispensed with. The Queen's visits to him were extremely frequent. His Lordship's treatment of the Queen's suite when she went to Theobald's, seems not to have been generally acceptable to the Visitors. In more than one Letter we find the writers vexed when they learned they were to go there. AFTER my hartie comendacions, understonding by comen speche that the Quenes Matie meanes to come to my Howse, and knowyng no certentie of the tyme |