433 
that her daughter was decripit, and not able to come with her, but was 
brought in a little cart, theyr poverty not allowing meanes for better 
provision: and, as I remember, Sir Walter Rawleigh in some part of 
his story speakes of her, and sayth that he saw her in England in 
anno 1589. Her death was strange and remarkable, as her long life 
was, having seen the death of so many descended of her, and both her 
own and her husband’s house ruined in the rebellions and wars.” 
I am indebted for this extract to my friend, John Gough Nichols, 
who appends a note that Sir Walter Raleigh did ‘not say that he saw her 
in England i in 1589, but that she was living i in 1589, and many years 
since. 
As Lord John Hay prefaced an anecdote to a brother of mine :— 
“Tt is a verra cur’os fac’, but it zs a fac’,” that though this remem- 
brance of Lord Leycester’s having read what Sir Walter Raleigh never 
printed is part of an unbroken pargraph, the writers who quote my lord’s 
record of gossip stop short at his remembrance, and omit any mention of 
it. One might have thought that what the earl remembered to have 
read was at least equal in authority to what he remembered to have 
_heard. But whether Lord Leycester gives us the gossip of my cousin 
Fitzwilliam, or of Mr. Haniot, or his own remembrance of what Sir 
Walter Raleigh sayth, he is clear, consistent, and uniform on_one point, 
—that it was to Queen Elizabeth the old Countess came, and sought 
redress and relief. Now, Lord Leycester ¢s the only authority we have that 
the Countess did appear at the English court seeking redress and relief, 
and on his authority we are required to believe that she did so. But 
haying laid this down as history, we are then told, and required equally 
to believe, that our historian was mistaken as to the time of the Coun- 
tess’s crossing the sea, which, say they, occurred in the reign of James I. 
For this change of the venue, however, not a scintilla of evidence is 
offered ; and while they endorse the earl on his opening gossip, they 
imperiously contradict him on the remainder. Lord Leycester wrote 
thirty-six years after the death of the Countess, and now, 120 years 
subsequent to the penning of his notable history, we are to receive their 
amendment of his conclusion on their mere assertion. Surely, if he 
knew little in 1640, they know less in 1860. He had the tittle-tattle 
of his day, but they have only his, and of this they choose to make 
“a mingle-mangle’* of their own. To admit the change of the supposed 
pilgrimage of the Countess from the reign of Queen Elizabeth to that of 
King James on their no-authority, would indeed be transforming what 
they claim as history into fiction, but still requiring it to be accepted as 
history,—accepting Kenilworth as correcting Edward VI.’s diary. 
The MS. ‘‘ Bib. Cotton, Nero. c. 10, p. 55, Plut 6, D,”’ in the British 
Museum, is King Edward VI.’s Diary or Journal of his reign, entirely 
in his own handwriting, and from which I copied this extract :— 
* Latimer’s Third Sermon before Edward VI., March 22, 1549. 
R. I. A. PROC.—YOL. VII. 3Q 
