[340]. The account here given is taken mainly from a contemporary MS., written by an officer of the Inquisition and an adherent of Portocarrero, in the British Museum, Add. 10,241: and from another account printed in Madrid, 1787.
[341]. ‘Stanhope Correspondence,’ Mahon, 11th June 1698.
[342]. Every detail of the correspondence will be found in the MSS. already referred to, and, in English, in ‘The Exorcism of Charles the Bewitched,’ in ‘The Year after the Armada,’ etc., by the present writer.
[343]. MSS. account already referred to. British Museum MSS., Add. 10,241.
[344]. This struggle, which cannot be described here, is fully narrated in ‘The Exorcism of Charles the Bewitched’ (‘Year After the Armada’), by Martin Hume.
[345]. Stanhope Correspondence.—Mahon.
[346]. Stanhope Correspondence.—Mahon.
[347]. There is no doubt whatever that the French claim through Maria Theresa and Anna of Austria, Queens of France, was the legitimate one, and that the Emperor had no valid right by Spanish law.
Printed by T. and A. Constable, Printers to His Majesty at the Edinburgh University Press.