Shortly after her husband’s departure from Edinburgh, the Queen, attended by her officers of state, set out upon a progress towards the Borders, withthe view, in particular, of holding justice-courts at Jedburgh. The southern marches of Scotland were almost always in a state of insubordination. The recent encouragement which the secret practices, first of Murray and afterwards of Morton, both aided by Elizabeth, had given to the turbulent spirit of the Borderers, called loudly for the interference of the law. Mary had intended to hold assizes in Liddisdale in August, but on account of the harvest, postponed leaving Edinburgh till October. On the 6th or 7th of that month, she sent forward Bothwell, her Lieutenant, to make the necessary preparations for her arrival, and on the 8th, the Queen and her Court set out,—the noblemen and gentlemen of the southern shires having been summoned to meet her with their retainers at Melrose. On the 10th shearrived at Jedburgh. There, or it may have been on her way from Melrose, she received the disagreeable news, that on the very day she left Edinburgh, her Lieutenant’s authority had been insulted by some of the unruly Borderers, and that soon after his reaching his Castle of Hermitage, a place of strength about eighteen miles from Jedburgh, he had been severely and dangerously wounded. Different historians assign different reasons for the attack made on Bothwell. Some say that Morton had bought over the tribe of Elliots, to revenge his present disgrace upon one whom he considered an enemy. Others, with greater probability, assert, that it was only a riot occasioned by thieves, whose lawless proceedings Bothwell wished to punish. But whichever statement be correct, the report of what had actually taken place was, as usual, a good deal exaggerated when it reached Mary. Being engaged, however, with public business at Jedburgh, she was prevented, for several days, from ascertaining the precise truth for herself. Finding that she had leisure on the 16th of the month, and being informed that her Lieutenant was still confined with his wounds, she paid him the compliment, or rather discharged the duty of riding across the country with some attendants, both to inquire into the state of his health, and to learn to what extent her authority had been insulted in his person. She remained with him only an hour or two, and returned to Jedburgh the same evening.[160]
The above simple statement of facts, so naturalin themselves, and so completely authenticated, acquires additional interest when compared with the common version of this story which Buchanan and his follower Robertson have contrived to render prevalent. “When the news that Bothwell was in great danger of his life,” says Buchanan, “was brought to the Queenat Borthwick, though thewinterwas very sharp, sheflew in haste, first to Melrose, then to Jedburgh. There, though she received certain intelligence that Bothwell was alive, yet, being impatient of delay, and not able to forbear, though in such a bad time of the year, notwithstanding the difficulty of the way, and the danger of robbers, she put herself on her journey with such attendants as hardly any honest man, though he was but of a mean condition, would trust his life and fortune to. From thence she returned again to Jedburgh, and there she was mighty diligent in making great preparations for Bothwell’s being brought thither.”[161]The whole of this is a tissue of wilful misrepresentation. No one, unacquainted with Buchanan’s character, would read the statement without supposing that Mary proceeded direct from Borthwick to Hermitage Castle, scarcely stopping an hour by the way. Now, if Mary heard of Bothwell’s accident at Borthwick (which is scarcely possible), it must have been, at the latest, on the 9th of October, or more probably on the evening of the 8th; but, so far from being in a hurry in consequence, it appears, by the Privy Council Register, that she did not reach Jedburgh till the 10th, and, by the PrivySeal Register, that she did not visit Hermitage Castle till the 16th of the month.[162]Had she really ridden from Borthwick to the Hermitage and back again to Jedburgh in one day, she would have performed a journey of nearly seventy miles, which she could not have done even though she had wished it. As to her employing herself, on her return to Jedburgh, “in making great preparations for Bothwell’s being brought thither,” she certainly must have made extremely good use of her time, for she returned on the evening of the 16th, and next day she was taken dangerously ill. The motives which induced Buchanan to propagate falsehood concerning Mary, are sufficiently known; but, being known, Robertson ought to have been well convinced of the truth of his allegations before he drew inferences upon such authority. But the Doctor had laid down the principle, that he was to judge of Mary’s love for Bothwell by itseffects; and it became, therefore, convenient for him to assert, that her visit to Hermitage Castle was one of those effects. “Maryinstantlyflew thither,” he says, “with an impatience which strongly marks the anxiety of a lover, but little suiting the dignity of a queen.” Now, “instantly,” must mean, that she allowed at all events six, and probably seven days to elapse; and that, too, after being informed of the danger one of the most powerful and best affectioned of her nobility had incurred in her behalf. Robertson must have thought it strange, that she staid only an hour or two at the Castle. “Upon her finding Bothwell slightly wounded,” says Tytler, “was itlove that made her in such a violent haste to return back the same night to Jedburgh, by the same bad roads and tedious miles? Surely, if love had in any degree possessed her heart, it must have supplied her with many plausible reasons for passing that night in her lover’s company, without exposing herself to the inconveniences of an uncomfortable journey, and the inclemencies of the night air at that season.” If Mary had been blamed for an over-degree of callousness and indifference, there would have been almost more justice in the censure. With honest warmth Chalmers remarks, that “therecordsand thefactslaugh at Robertson’s false dates and frothy declamation.”[163]
On the 17th of October, Mary was seized with a severe and dangerous fever, and for ten days her life was esteemed in great danger; indeed, it was at one time reported at Edinburgh, that she was dead. The fever was accompanied with fainting or convulsion-fits, of an unusual and alarming description. They frequently lasted for three or four hours; and during their continuance, she was, to all appearance, lifeless. Her bodywas motionless; her eyes closed; her mouth fast; her feet and arms stiff and cold. Upon coming out of these, she suffered the most dreadful pain, her whole frame being collapsed, and her limbs drawn writhingly together. She was at length so much reduced, that she herself began to despair of recovery. She summoned together the noblemen who were with her, in particular Murray, Huntly, Rothes, and Bothwell, and gave them what she believed to be her dying advice and instructions. Bothwell was not at Jedburgh when the Queen was taken ill, nor did he show any greater haste to proceed thither when he heard of her sickness than she had done to visit him, it being the 24th of October before he left Hermitage Castle.[164]After requesting her council to pray for her, and professing her willingness to submit to the will of Heaven, Mary recommended her son to their especial care. She entreated that they would giveevery attention to his education, suffering none to approach him, whose example might pervert his manners or his mind, and studying to bring him up in all virtue and godliness. She strongly advised the same toleration to be continued in matters of religion, which she had practised; and she concluded, by requesting that suitable provision should be made for the servants of her household, to whom Mary was scrupulously attentive, and by all of whom she was much beloved. Fortunately however, after an opportunity had been thus afforded her of evincing her strength of mind, and willingness to meet death, the violence of her disease abated, and her youth and good constitution triumphed over the attack.
Darnley, who was with his father at Glasgow, probably did not hear of the Queen’s illness till one or two days after its commencement; but as soon as he was made acquainted with her extreme danger, he determined on going to see her. Here again, we discover the marked distinction that characterized Darnley’s conduct towards his wife and towards her nobility. With Mary herself he had no quarrel; and though his love for her was not so strong and pure as it should have been, and was easily forgotten when it stood in the way of his own selfish wishes, he never lost any opportunity of evincing his desire to continue on a friendly footing with her. When he last parted from her at Holyrood, he had said that she should not see him for a long while; but startled into better feelings by her unexpected illness, he came to visit her at Jedburgh, on the 28th of October. The Queen was, by this time, better; but her convalescence being still uncertain,Darnley’s arrival was far from being agreeable to her ministers. Should Mary die, one or other of them would be appointed Regent, an office to which they knew that Darnley, as father to the young prince, had strong claims. It was their interest, therefore, to sow dissension in every possible way, between the Queen and her husband; and they trembled lest the remaining affection they entertained for each other, might be again rekindled into a more ardent flame. Mary, when cool and dispassionate, they knew they could manage easily; but Mary, when in love, chose, like most other women, to have her own way. They received Darnley, on the present occasion, so forbiddingly, and gave him so little countenance, that having spent a day and a night with Mary, he was glad again to take his departure, and leave her to carry on the business of the state, surrounded by those designing and factious men who were weaving the web of her ruin.
On the 9th of November, the Queen, with her court, left Jedburgh, and went to Kelso, where she remained two days. She proceeded thence to Berwick, attended by not fewer than 800 knights and gentlemen on horseback. From Berwick, she rode to Dunbar; and from Dunbar, by Tantallan to Craigmillar, where she arrived on the 20th of November 1566, and remained for three weeks, during which time an occurrence of importance took place.
END OF VOLUME FIRST.
PRINTED BY J. HUTCHISON,FOR THE HEIRS OF D. WILLISON.
Footnotes:
[1]Polydore, lib. 26. quoted by Leslie—“Defence of Mary’s Honour,” Preface, p. xiv.—Apud Anderson, vol. I.
[2]Knox seems not only to justify the assassination of Cardinal Beaton, but to hint that it would have been proper to have disposed of his successor in the same way. “These,” says he, “are the works of our God, whereby he would admonish the tyrants of this earth, that, in the end, he will be revenged of their cruelty, what strength soever they make in the contrary. But such is the blindness of man, as David speaks, that the posterity does ever follow the footsteps of their wicked fathers, and principally in their impiety: For how little differs the cruelty of that bastard, that yet is called Bishop of St Andrews, from the cruelty of the former, we will after hear.”—Knox’s Hist. of the Reformation, p. 65.
[3]Dalyell’s “Fragments of Scottish History.”
[4]Keith, p. 68.—Knox’s History, p. 94-6.
[5]M’Crie’s Life of Knox, vol. i. p. 222.
[6]M’Crie’s Life of Knox, vol. ii. p. 206.
[7]The Biographer of Knox goes perhaps a little too far, when he proposes to alleviate the sorrow felt for the loss of these architectural monuments of superstition, by reminding the antiquarian thatRuinsinspire more lively sentiments of the sublime and beautiful than more perfect remains. This is a piece of ingenuity, but not of sound reasoning. It is rather a curious doctrine, that a Cathedral or Monastery does not look best with all its walls standing.—M’Crie’s Life of Knox, vol. I. p. 271.
[8]It is worth while observing with what a total want of all Christian charity Knox speaks of the death of Mary of Guise. Alluding to her burial, he says:—“The question was moved of her burial: the preachers boldly gainstood that any superstitious rites should be used within that realm, which God of his mercy had begun to purge; and so was she clapped in a coffin of lead, and kept in the Castle from the 9th of June until the 19th of October, when she, by Pinyours, was carried to a ship, and so carried to France. What pomp was used there, we neither hear nor yet regard; but in it we see that she, that delighted that others lay without burial, got it neither so soon as she herself (if she had been of the counsel in her life) would have required it, neither yet so honourable in this realm as sometimes she looked for. It may perchance be a pronosticon, that the Guisean blood cannot have any rest within this realm.” Elsewhere he says—“Within few days after, began her belly and loathsome legs to swell, and so continued till that God did execute his judgment upon her.” And again—“God, for his mercy’s sake, rid us of the rest of the Guisean blood. Amen.” As Keith remarks, it was not by this spirit that the Apostles converted the world.—Keith, p. 129.
[9]M’Crie’s Life of Knox, Vol. 1. p. 323.
[10]By the kindness of Mr Brown of Glasgow, the ingenious delineator of the Royal Palaces of Scotland, we are enabled to give, as the vignette to the present Volume, a view of this Palace, exhibiting the window of the very room where Mary was born, which is the large window on the first floor, immediately under the flight of birds.
[11]Sadler’s State Papers and Letters, vol. i. p. 263.
[12]Whittaker, vol. iv. p. 144.
[13]Mezeray, Histoire de France, tom. iii. p. 50.
[14]Miss Benger’s Memoirs, vol. i. p. 189, et seq.
[15]Melville’s Memoirs of his own Life, p. 12.
[16]In transcribing dates it may be proper to mention, that we do not observe the old division of the year. Down till 1563, the French began the year at Easter; but it was then altered to the 1st of January, by the Chancellor L’Hopital. In Scotland till 1599, and in England till 1751, the year began on the 25th of March. Thus, in all the State Papers and letters of the age, written between the 1st of January and the 25th of March, the dates invariably belong to what we should now consider the preceding year. It is useful to be aware of this fact; though it is unnecessary for a writer of the present day, to deviate from the established computation of time.—Anderson’s Collections, vol. i.—Preface, p. li.; and Laing, vol. i. p. 266.
[17]Keith, p. 73.
[18]Goodall’s Examination, vol. l. p. 159, et seq. The motto which Goodall put upon his title page,
“Pandere res altà terrâ et caligine mersas,”
he has in more than one instance amply justified.
[19]Mezeray, Castelnau, Brantome, Thuanus, Chalmers, Miss Benger.
[20]This picture originally belonged to Lord Robert Stuart, Earl of Orkney, one of Mary’s natural brothers, and is now in the possession of William Trail, Esq. of Woodwick, Orkney, into whose family it came, together with other relics of the Earl, by the marriage of an ancestor of Mr Trail, to one of his descendants.VideAppendix A.
[21]It is to the kindness of John Watson Gordon, Esq. deservedly one of the most eminent portrait-painters in Scotland, that we are indebted, both for the use of the painting from which the engraving has been made, and for several of the facts we have stated above. Mr Gordon has executed three copies of the picture—all of them exceedingly beautiful and accurate—possessing the merits, without any of the dusky dimness, which time has thrown over the original.
[22]The coat of arms borne by Francis and Mary is worth describing. The coat was borne Baron and Femme;—The first contained the coat of the Dauphin, which took up the upper half of the shield, and consisted of the arms of France. The lower half was impaled quarterly. Inoneandfourthe arms of Scotland, and intwoandthreethose of England. Over the whole was half an escutcheon the sinister half being obscured or cut off, to denote that the English crown was in the possession of another, to the bearer’s prejudice. Under the arms were four lines in French, thus wretchedly translated by Strype, in his “Annals of Queen Elizabeth.”
“The arms of Mary Queen Dauphiness of France,The noblest lady in earth for till advance,Of Scotland Queen and of England, alsoOf France, as God hath providet it so.”
Keith, p. 114. Chalmers, vol. 2d, p. 413. A painting (probably a copy) containing these arms, and the above motto, is preserved in Mary’s apartments at Holyroodhouse.
[23]Miss Benger, Vol. II. p. 7.
[24]Miss Benger, vol. ii. p. 43.
[25]Miss Benger erroneously antedates the death of Francis, on the 28th of November. See herMemoirs, vol. ii. p. 74. Chalmers, who is the very historian of dates, gives a copy of the inscription on the tomb of Francis, which of course settles the point, vol. ii. p. 124. Miss Benger does not appear to have seen this inscription.
[26]Conæus in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 19.
[27]Keith, p. 157 and 160.
[28]Keith, p. 160, & seq.
[29]Keith, p. 165, et seq.
[30]Keith, p. 167, et seq.
[31]Robertson says, that the amendment would not have been approved of by “eitherQueen.” He alleges that Mary had only “suspended” the prosecution of her title to the English Crown; and that “she determined to revive her claim, on the first prospect of success.” That Robertson has, in this instance, done injustice to Mary, is evident, from the exact consistency of her future conduct, with what will be found stated in the text.—Robertson,Vol.ii.p.200.
[32]Keith, p. 170. et seq. Robertson says, that at the period of these conferences, Mary was only in her eighteenth year; but, as they both took place in 1561, she must have been in her nineteenth year, which Keith confirms, who says (page 178), “The readers having now perused several original conferences, will, I suppose, clearly discern the fine spirit and genius of that princess, who was yet but in the 19th year of her age.”
[33]Brantome in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 82.
[34]Keith, p. 175. Throckmorton writes, “Thereto the Queen-mother said, The King, my son, and I, would be glad to do good betwixt the Queen, my sister, your mistress, and the Queen, my daughter, and shall be glad to hear that there were good amity betwixt them; for neither the King, my son, nor I, nor any of his Council, will do harm in the matter,or show ourselves other than friends to them both.”
[35]Keith, p. 164.
[36]Keith, Appendix, p. 92.
[37]Robertson, Appendix, No. 5.—from the Cotton Library.
[38]Keith, p. 178.—Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 418—Stranguage, p. 9—and Freebairn, p. 19.
[39]Brantome in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 483, et seq.—Keith, p. 179—and Freebairn, p. 16 et seq.
[40]Several translations of this song have been attempted, but no translation can preserve the spirit of the original.
Adieu, thou pleasant land of France!The dearest of all lands to me,Where life was like a joyful dance—The joyful dance of infancy.Farewell my childhood’s laughing wiles,Farewell the joys of youth’s bright day;The bark that bears me from thy smiles,Bears but my meaner half away.The best is thine;—my changeless heartIs given, beloved France! to thee;And let it sometimes, though we part,Remind thee with a sigh of me.
Mary was not the only one who commemorated in verse her departure from France. NumerousVaudevilleswere written upon the occasion, several of which are preserved in theAnthologie Française.
[41]Jebb, vol. ii. p. 484. Keith, p. 180. Miss Benger, vol. ii. p. 125. In an anonymous French work, entitled, “Histoire de Marie Stuart, Reine d’Ecosse et de France,” &c. respectably written on the whole, there is an amusing mistake concerning the locality of Holyroodhouse. In tom. i. p. 181, it is said, “The Queen landed at Leith, and then departed for L’Islebourg,” (the name anciently given to Edinburgh), “a celebrated Abbey a mile or two distant. In this Abbey Mary remained for three weeks, and in the month of October 1561 took her departure for Edinburgh.” This departure for Edinburgh alludes to the visit which Mary paid, a short time after her arrival, to the Castle.
[42]The day that his present Majesty George IV. arrived at Leith, in August 1822 (whose landing and progress to Holyroodhouse, though much more brilliant, resembled in some respects that of his ancestor Mary), was as wet and unfavourable as the weather so piously described by Knox. Was this a “forewarning” also of the “comfort” our gracious Sovereign brought into the country? If Knox believed inwarnings, there is no telling to what conclusions these warnings might have led.
[43]M’Crie’s Life of Knox, vol. ii. p. 22.
[44]Miss Benger (vol. ii. p. 132) erroneously supposes, that the Archbishop of St Andrews had died before Mary’s return to Scotland. She should have known that it was he who presided at the baptism of James VI., of which ceremony she gives so particular an account. See Keith, p. 360, and Chalmers, vol. i. p. 196.
[45]Jebb, vol. ii. p. 486. Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 202.
[46]Buchanan’s Detection, in Anderson’s Collections, vol. ii. p. 52 and 58.
[47]This is apparently the first time Mary had ever expressed to Knox her sentiments regarding this pamphlet. He had been treated less ceremoniously by Elizabeth. But knowing the respect in which she was held by the Protestants, he saw it for his interest to attempt to pacify her, and wrote to her several conciliatory letters. Elizabeth put a stop to them, by desiring Cecil, to forward to Knox the following laconic epistle, which merits preservation as a literary curiosity:—“Mr Knox! Mr Knox! Mr Knox! there is neither male nor female: all are one in Christ, saith Paul. Blessed is the man who confides in the Lord! I need to wish you no more prudence than God’s grace; whereof God send you plenty.W. Cecil.” Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 494. Knox himself gives a somewhat different edition of this letter, (Hist. of the Reformation, p. 212.) Where Chalmers found the above, he does not mention.
[48]Knox’s History of the Reformation, p. 287, & seq.—Keith, p. 188. It is worth observing, that Knox is the only person who gives us any detailed account of these interviews, and he, of course, represents them in as favourable a light for himself as possible. “The report,” says Randolph, “that Knox hath talked with the Queen, maketh the Papists doubt what will become of the world.”—“I have been the more minute in the narrative of this curious conference,” says M’Crie, “because it affords the most satisfactory refutation of the charge that Knox treated Mary with rudeness and disrespect.” Different people have surely different modes of defining rudeness and respect.
[49]Keith supposes erroneously, that this disturbance took place in the Chapel at Holyrood. Randolph, his authority, though his expressions are equivocal, undoubtedly alludes to the Royal Chapel at Stirling. Keith, p. 189 and 190.
[50]Knox, p. 292.
[51]Keith, p 192.
[52]It is worth while attending to the very partial and grossly perverted account which Knox gives of this proclamation, actually introducing into his History an edition of it, fabricated by himself. He then proceeds to find fault with the Magistrates for yielding to “Jezabel’s” commands, and remarks, in allusion to a counter proclamation which the Queen issued, that the town should be patent to all her lieges until they were found guilty of some offence,—“The Queen took upon her greater boldness than she and Balaam’s bleating priests durst have attempted before. And so murderers, adulterers, thieves, whores, drunkards, idolaters, and all malefactors got protection under the Queen’s wings, under colour that they were of her religion. And so got the Devil freedom again, whereas before he durst not have been seen by daylight upon the common streets. Lord deliver us from that bondage!”—Knox, p. 292-3.
[53]Randolph in Keith, p. 210.
[54]Goodall, vol. i. p. 199, et seq.
[55]Freebairn’s translation of Bois Guilbert, p. 32, et seq.—Knox’s History, p. 307.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 62, and vol. ii. p. 212.—Keith, p. 215 and 216.—and Goodall, vol. i. p. 191.
[56]Knox, p. 302.—Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 425.
[57]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 78.; vol. ii. p. 293, et seq.; and p. 426, et seq.
[58]Knox, p. 315.; Goodall, vol. i. p. 192.—Chalmers says, that Sir John Gordon’s antagonist was not a Lord Ogilvy, but only James Ogilvy of Cardell, a son of the deceased Alexander Ogilvy of Findlater. But as he does not give any authority for this assertion, we have preferred following Knox, Goodall, and Robertson.
[59]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 80.; and vol. ii. p. 298.
[60]Keith, p. 225.
[61]Keith, p. 226.
[62]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 84, and vol. ii. p. 302.
[63]Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 306.
[64]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 90.
[65]“The time and place for perpetrating this horrid deed,” says Robertson, “were frequently appointed; but the executing of it was wonderfully prevented by some of those unforeseen accidents which so often occur to disconcert the schemes, and to intimidate the hearts of assassins.” There is something strangely inconsistent between this statement, and that which Robertson makes immediately afterwards in a note, where he says,—“We have imputed the violent conduct of the Earl of Huntly to a sudden start of resentment, without charging him with any premeditated purpose of rebellion.” And that Huntly did not intend to seize the Queen and her ministers, the historian argues upon these grounds:—“1st, On the Queen’s arrival in the North, he laboured in good earnest to gain her favour, and to obtain a pardon for his son.—2d, He met the Queen, first at Aberdeen and then at Rothiemay, whither he would not have ventured to come had he harboured any such treasonable resolution.—3d, His conduct was irresolute and wavering, like that of a man disconcerted by an unforeseen danger, not like one executing a concerted plan.—4th, The most considerable persons of his clan submitted to the Queen, and found surety to obey her commands; had the Earl been previously determined to rise in arms against the Queen, or to seize her ministers, it is probable he would have imparted it to his principal followers, nor would they have deserted him in this manner,” Yet in direct opposition to this view of the matter, Robertson, in telling the story of Huntly’s wrongs, throws upon him the whole blame, and entirely exculpates Murray.—Robertson, vol. i. p. 222, et seq.
[66]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 93, and vol. ii. p. 306.
[67]Keith, p. 226.
[68]Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 307.
[69]Knox, p. 320.—Buchanan’s History, Book xvii.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 95, and vol. ii. p. 309, whose authority is a letter of Randolph, preserved in the Paper Office, and written the evening of the very day on which the battle took place. Randolph, though not on the field himself, had two servants there, and saw the dead body of the Earl, when it was brought into Aberdeen. Robertson and others have said, that Huntly, who was very corpulent, was slain on the field, or trodden to death in the pursuit. Chalmers, however, has truth on his side, when he remarks, that “Doctor Robertson, who never saw those instructive letters (of Randolph), grossly misrepresents the whole circumstances of that affair at Corrachie; he says, ‘Huntly advanced with a considerable force towards Aberdeen, and filled the Queen’ssmall courtwith theutmost consternation; and that Murray had only a handful of men in whom he could confide; but, by his steady courage and prudent conduct, gained a miraculous victory.’ For the assertion of Murray’s having only ahandful of men, he quotes Keith, p. 230, in which there is not one word of theforceat Corrachie on either side. The force there spoken of is what the Queen had about hertwo months beforeon her first progress into the North, not on her return to Aberdeen, after new troops had been raised, and old ones summoned to that premeditated and barbarous scene.” Knox is also a better authority upon this subject than Robertson. He gives the following curious account of the Earl’s death and subsequent fate:—“The Earl, immediately after his taking, departed this life, without any wound, or yet appearance of any stroke, whereof death might have ensued; and so, because it was late, he was cast over athwart a pair of creels, and so was carried to Aberdeen, and was laid in the tolbooth thereof, that the response which his wife’s witches had given might be fulfilled, who all affirmed (as the most part say), that that same night he should be in the tolbooth of Aberdeen, without any wound upon his body. When his lady got knowledge thereof, she blamed her principal witch, called Janet; but she stoutly defended herself (as the Devil can ever do), and affirmed that she gave a true answer, albeit she spoke not all the truth; for she knew that he should be there dead.” Knox, p. 328. “It is a memorable fact,” Chalmers elsewhere remarks, “that Huntly and Sutherland” (who was forfeited soon afterwards, as implicated in this pretended rebellion) “were two of those nobles who had sent Bishop Lesley to France, with offers of duty and services to the Queen, while Murray, Maitland, and other considerable men offered their duties and services to Elizabeth.”
[70]Randolph in Keith, p. 230.
[71]Little did Mary then dream of Fotheringay.
[72]In Buchanan’sCameleon, a severe satire, written at the request of his patron the Earl of Murray, when that nobleman quarrelled with Secretary Maitland, we have the following ridiculous account of the secret motives which led to this disastrous northern expedition. “The Queen, by advice of her uncles, devised to destroy the Earl of Murray, thinking him to be a great bridle to refrain her appetites, and impediment to live at liberty of her pleasure; not that he ever used any violence anent her, but that his honesty was so great that she was ashamed to attempt any thing indecent in his presence. She, then, being deliberate to destroy him, by the Earl of Huntly, went to the north and he in her company; and howbeit the treason was opened plainly, and John Gordon lying not far off the town (Aberdeen) with a great power, and the Earl of Murray expressly lodged in a house separate from all other habitation, and his death by divers ways sought,—this Cameleon (Maitland) whether for simpleness or for lack of foresight, or for boldness of courage, I refer to every man’s conscience that doth know him, he alone could see no treason, could fear no danger, and could never believe that the Earl of Huntly would take on hand such an enterprise.” This statement, while it gives some notion of the dependence to be placed on Buchanan’s accuracy when influenced by party feelings, betrays, at the same time, the important secret, that Maitland saw and felt the injustice of Huntly’s persecution.—Buchanan’s Cameleon, p. 9.
[73]Brantome in Jebb, p. 495, & seq.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 101.—Freebairn, p. 25—and Histoire de Marie Stuart, tom. i. p. 210. Knox, as usual, gives a highly indecorous and malicious account of this affair, his drift being to make his readers believe (though he does not to venture to say so in direct terms) that Mary had first tempted, and then betrayed Chatelard; and that she was anxious to have him despatched secretly, that he might not stain her honour by a public confession. If such were really the fact, it is odd that Chatelard should have been brought to a scaffold, which was surrounded by thousands, and that, even according to Knox himself, he said nothing relating to Mary but what is narrated in the text.—Vide Knox’s History, p. 325.
[74]Chalmers, in his account of the opening of this Parliament, seems to have committed an error. He says, (vol. i. p. 105.) “The Queen came to Parliament in her robesand was crowned.” That any coronation took place, is not at all likely. Chalmers surely had forgotten that Mary was crowned at Stirling by Cardinal Beaton just twenty years before. There was no reason why the ceremony should have been repeated. Chalmers’ mistake is probably founded upon the following passage, in a letter of Randolph’s, quoted by Keith, p. 239—“The Parliament began 26th May, on which day the Queen came to it in her robesand crowned.” The wordwasis an interpolation of Chalmers. But as Randolph goes on immediately to say,—“The Duke carried the crown, Argyle the sceptre, &c.,” Chalmers probably thought Mary could not at the same time wear the crown. But the crown of state, carried upon state occasions, was no doubt different from the crown made expressly to be worn by the reigning Queen. Buchanan puts the matter beyond a doubt, for he says explicitly;—“The Queen,with the crown on her head, and in her royal robes, went in great pomp to the Parliament House—a new sight to many.” Buchanan’s History, Book xvii.
[75]Knox’s History of the Reformation, p. 332 et seq.
[76]Knox, p. 345.
[77]Keith, p. 206 and 249.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 65, et seq.—Whittaker, vol. iii, p. 334.—Miss Benger, vol. ii, p. 145, et seq.
[78]These violars were all Scotchmen, and two of them were of the name of Dow,—“a name,” says Chalmers, “consecrated to music.” Having never heard of this consecration before, we think it not unlikely that Chalmers has mistaken Dow for Gow.VideChalmers, vol. ii. p. 72.
[79]Jebb, vol. ii. p. 202. Chalmers, vol. i. p. 95, and vol. ii. p. 156. Tytler’s Enquiry, vol. ii. p. 4 et seq.; Histoire de Marie Stuart, p. 218; and Laing, vol. i. p. 10.
[80]Melville’s Memoirs, p. 110-30. The French historian Castelnau, speaks in exactly similar terms. When sent by the King of France as ambassador to Mary, “I found that princess,” he says, “in the flower of her age, esteemed and adored by her subjects, and sought after by all neighbouring states, in so much that there was no great fortune or alliance that she might not have aspired to, not only because she was the relation and successor of the Queen of England, but because she was endowed with more graces and perfection of beauty than any other princess of her time.”—Castelnau in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 460.
[81]Keith, p. 269.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 123.
[82]Chalmers says (vol. i. p. 120), that the “Countess of Lennox sent Murray a diamond,” which, though true, is not supported by the authority he quotes—Randolph in Keith, who says (p. 259)—“Lennox giveth to the Queen and most of the council jewels; but none to Murray.” The authority Chalmers ought to have quoted is Melville (p. 127), who, on his return from his embassy to England, brought some presents with him from Lady Lennox, who was then not aware of the precise state of parties in Scotland. “My Lady Lennox,” says Melville, “sent also tokens: to the Queen a ring with a fair diamont; ane emerald to my Lord her husband, who was yet in Scotland; a diamont to my Lord of Murray; ane orloge or montre (watch) set with diamonts and rubies, to the secretary Lethington; a ring with a ruby to my brother Sir Robert; for she was still in good hope that her son, my Lord Darnley, should come better speed than the Earl of Leicester, anent the marriage with the Queen. She was a very wise and discreet matron, and had many favourers in England for the time.”
[83]In confirmation of the fact, that he was “well-instructed,” it may be mentioned, that, before he was twelve years old, he wrote a tale, called “Utopia Nova.” Some ballads are also ascribed to him; and Bishop Montague, in his Preface to the Works of James VI., mentions, that he translated Valerius Maximus into English. His only literary effort, which seems to have been preserved, is a letter he wrote when about nine years old from Temple Newsome, his father’s principal seat in Yorkshire, to his cousin Mary Tudor, Queen of England. It deserves insertion as a curiosity:
“Like as the monuments of ancient authors, most triumphant, most victorious, and most gracious Princess, declare how that a certain excellent musician, Timotheus Musicus, was wont, with his sweet-proportioned and melodious harmony, to inflame Alexander the Great, Conqueror and King of Macedonia, to civil wars, with a most fervent desire, even so, I, remembering with myself oftentimes how that (over and besides such manifold benefits as your Highness heretofore hath bestowed on me) it hath pleased your most excellent Majesty lately to accept a little plot of my simple penning, which I termedUtopia Nova; for the which, it being base, vile, and maimed, your Majesty hath given me a rich chain of gold;—the noise (I say) of such instruments, as I hear now and then, (although their melody differ much from the sweet strokes and sounds of King Alexander’s Timotheus), do not only persuade and move, yea prick and spur me forward, to endeavour my wits daily (all vanities set apart) to virtuous learning and study, being thereto thus encouraged, so oftentimes by your Majesty’s manifold benefits, gifts, and rewards; but also I am enflamed and stirred, even now my tender age notwithstanding, to be serving your Grace, wishing every hair in my head for to be a worthy soldier of that same self heart, mind and stomach, that I am of. But where as I perceive that neither my wit, power, nor years, are at this present corresponding unto this, my good will: these shall be, therefore, (most gracious Princess) most humbly rendering unto your Majesty immortal thanks for your rich chain, and other your Highness’ sundry gifts, given unto me without any my deservings, from time to time. Trusting in God one day of my most bounden duty, to endeavour myself, with my faithful hearty service, to remember the same. And being afraid, with these my superfluous words to interturb (God forfend) your Highness, whose most excellent Majesty is always, and specially now, occupied in most weighty matters, thus I make an end. Praying unto Almighty God most humbly and faithfully to preserve, keep, and defend your Majesty, long reigning over us all, your true and faithful subjects, a most victorious and triumphant Princess. Amen.—From Temple Newsome, the 28th March 1554.
Your Majesty’s most bounden and obedient subject and servant,Henry Darnley.*
* Ellis’s Collection of “Original Letters Illustrative of English History.” Second series, vol. ii. p. 249.
[84]Keith, p. 278.
[85]Melville’s Memoirs, p. 134.
[86]Mary’s conduct upon this occasion may be compared with that of Elizabeth to her favourite Essex; but the Scottish Queen’s motives were of a far purer and better kind. “When Essex,” says Walpole, “acted a fit of sickness, not a day passed without the Queen’s sending after to see him; and she once went so far as to sit long by him, and order his broths and things.” “It may be observed,” remarks Chalmers, “that Mary was engaged (or rather secretly resolved) to marry Darnley, but Elizabeth only flirted with Essex.”
[87]Keith, p. 270, and Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 214, et seq.
[88]Castelnau in Keith, p. 277.
[89]Keith, p. 275.
[90]Keith, Appendix, p. 97.
[91]Keith, p. 280.
[92]Keith, p. 290.
[93]Of Chatelherault, Argyle, Murray, Morton, and Glencairn, all of whom were summoned to the Convention, only Morton came. Keith, p. 287.
[94]Keith, p. 291, et seq.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 139, et seq.; vol. ii. p. 141.—Tytler, vol. i. p. 374, et seq. Melville’s account of this conspiracy is, that Murray and the other Lords “had made a mynt to tak the Lord Darnley, in the Queen’s company, at the Raid of Baith, and to have sent him in England as they allegit. I wot not what was in their minds, but it was ane evil-favoured enterprise whereintil the Queen was in danger, either of kepping (imprisonment) or heart-breaking; and as they had failed in their foolish enterprise, they took on plainly their arms of rebellion.” Melville, p. 135. There is some reason to believe, that Knox was implicated in this conspiracy; for, in the continuation of his History, written by his amanuensis, Richard Bannatyne, under the authority of the General Assembly, it appears that a Mr Hamilton, minister of St Andrews, had openly accused him of a share in it; and though Knox noticed the accusation, it does not appear that he ever satisfactorily refuted it.—Goodall, vol. i. p. 207.
[95]Keith, p. 293—Spottiswoode, p. 190.
[96]Keith, p. 294,et seq.
[97]Keith, p. 297.
[98]Buchanan says, foolishly enough, that the predictions of “wizardly women” contributed much to hasten this marriage. They prophesied, it seems, that if it was consummated before the end of July, it would be happy for both; if not, it would be the source of much misery. It is a pity that these predictions were not true.
[99]Randolph in Robertson, Appendix, No. XI.—Keith, p. 307. Miss Benger, vol. ii. p. 214.
[100]Keith, p. 303 and 304. This was a day or two before Darnley’s marriage.
[101]Keith, Appendix No. VII. p. 99, et seq.
[102]M’Crie’s Life of Knox, vol. ii. p. 106; and Tytler’s Enquiry, vol. i. p. 362 and 367.
[103]Knox, p. 389.
[104]Keith, Appendix, p. 264.
[105]Robertson, Appendix to Vol. i. Nos. XII. and XIII.
[106]Keith, Appendix, p. 114.
[107]Keith, p. 316, and Chalmers, vol. i. p. 155.
[108]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 156.
[109]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 157, and Keith, p. 319.
[110]Keith, p. 319.—Melville, p. 135.
[111]Blackwood in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 204.
[112]Keith, p. 331.
[113]Melville’s Memoirs, p. 147.
[114]Conæus in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 25.
[115]Dr Stuart, in support of his statements on this subject, quotes, in addition to the authorities already mentioned, Mezeray “Histoire de France,” tome 3, and Thuanus, “Historia sui Temporis,” lib. xxxvii. But we suspect he has done so at random; for, on referring to these works, we have been unable to discover any thing which bears upon the matter. Chalmers, who is in general acute and explicit enough, says, that these ambassadors came “to advise the Queen not to pardon the expatriated nobles;” vol. ii. p. 158. Laing, who writes with so muchapparentcandour andrealability against Mary that he almost makes “the worse appear the better reason,” has avoided falling into the gross error of Robertson. “It would be unjust,” he says, “to suppose, that, upon acceding to the Holy League, for the preservation of the Catholic faith, she was apprised of the full extent of the design to exterminate the Protestants by a general massacre throughout Christendom; but the instructions from her uncle rendered her inexorable towards the banished Lords.”—Laing’s Preliminary Dissertation to the History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 9.
[116]Keith, p. 328 and 329.
[117]Goodall, vol. i. p. 222.
[118]Several of these pennies, as they were called, both of gold and silver, remain to this day; and some of them have been already noticed. In December 1565, there was stamped a silver penny, called theMary Rial, bearing on one side a tree, with the motto,Dat gloria vires; and the circumscription,Exsurgat Deus, et dissipentur inimici ejus; and, on the other,Maria et Henricus, Dei Gratia, Regina et Rex Scotorum. Speaking of this coin, Keith says, that “the famous ewe-tree of Crookston, the inheritance of the family of Darnley, in the parish of Paisley, is made the reverse of this new coin; and the inscription about the tree,Dat gloria vires, is no doubt with a view to reflect honour on the Lennox family. This tree, he adds, which stands to this day, is of so large a trunk, and so well spread in its branches, that it is seen at several miles distance.”—Keith, p. 327, and Appendix, p. 118.—It stands no longer.
[119]Buchanan’s History.—Melville’s Memoirs.—Keith, p. 325.
[120]Goodall, vol. i. p. 227.
[121]Melville’s Memoirs, p. 132 and 133.
[122]We translate from the original French of an edition, of theMartyre de la Royne d’Escosse, printed at Antwerp, in the year 1583,—which very nearly agrees with the Edition in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 202.
[123]Buchanan alone, of all the Scottish historians, has dared to insinuate the probability of an illicit intercourse having subsisted between Mary and Rizzio; and the calumny is too self-evidently false to merit a moment’s notice. Every respectable writer reprobates so disgusting a piece of scandal, however unfavourably inclined towards Mary in other respects. Camden, Castelnau, Robertson, Hume, Tytler, Laing, and Dr Stuart, all of whom think it worth while to advert to the subject in Notes, put the falsehood of Buchanan’s assertion beyond the most distant shadow of a doubt. Indeed, it is paying it too great a compliment to advert to it at all.
[124]Miss Benger, oddly enough, says, it was on Saturday the 5th of April; a mistake into which no other historian with whom we are acquainted has fallen.—Miss Benger’s Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 233.
[125]The Parliament had met upon the 7th, and Mary had opened it in person, unattended by Darnley, who refused to give it his countenance; but no business of importance had as yet been transacted.
[126]This disease was “an inflammation of the liver, and a consumption of the kidneys.”—Keith,Appendix,p.119.
[127]Blackwood in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 204.—Goodall, vol. i. p. 252.
[128]Stranguage, p. 33.—Crawford’s Memoirs, p. 9.
[129]Keith, Appendix, p. 122.
[130]Conæus in Jebb. Vol. ii. p. 25.
[131]Robertson’s Appendix to vol. i. No. xv.
[132]Keith, p. 330.—Appendix, p. 119.—Melville’s Memoirs, p. 148.—Buchanan’s History of Scotland, Book xvii.—Martyre de Marie in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 204.—Knox, p. 392.—Holinshed’s Chronicles, p. 382.—Robertson, Appendix to Vol. i. No. xv.—Some historians have maintained, that Rizzio was actually despatched in Mary’s presence. But this is not the fact, for Mary remained ignorant of his fate till next day. In a letter which the Earl of Bedford and Randolph wrote to the Privy Council of England, giving an account of this murder, and which has been published in the first series of “Ellis’s Original Letters, illustrative of English History,” (vol. ii. p. 207), we find these words:—“He was not slain in the Queen’s presence, as was said.” Holinshed and others are equally explicit. It has been likewise said, that it was not intended to have killed him that evening; but to have tried him next day, and then to have hanged or beheaded him publicly. That there is no foundation for this assertion, is proved by the authorities quoted above; and to these may be added the letter from Morton and Ruthven to Throckmorton, and “the bond of assurance for the murder to be committed,” granted by Darnley to the conspirators, on the 1st of March, both preserved by Goodall, vol. i. p. 264 and 266. That the conspirators meant, as others have insisted, to take advantage of the situation in which Mary then was, and terrify her into a miscarriage, which might have ended in her death, is unsupported by any evidence; nor can we see what purposes such a design would have answered.
[133]Vide M’Crie’s Life of Knox, vol. i. p. 47.
[134]Knox, p. 339.—Buchanan, Book XVII.
[135]Keith, p. 332—and Appendix, 126.
[136]That something of the kind was actually contemplated, we learn from Mary herself. “In their council,” she says in the letter already quoted, “they thought it most expedient we should be warded in our castle of Stirling, there to remain till we had approved in Parliament all their wicked enterprises, established their religion, and given to the King the crown-matrimonial, and the whole government of our realm; or else, by all appearance, firmly purposed to have put us to death, or detained us in perpetual captivity.”—Keith, Appendix, p. 132.
[137]Ruthven’s “Discourse” concerning the murder of Rizzio, in Keith, Appendix, p. 128.
[138]Keith, p. 334.—Stuart’s History of Scotland, p. 138, et seq.
[139]Melville’s Memoirs, p. 154—Goodall, vol. i. p. 286.—Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 164.
[140]Melville’s Memoirs, p. 156.—Keith, p. 337.
[141]Melville’s Memoirs, p. 158.
[142]Keith, p. 345, and Chalmers, vol. i. p. 180.
[143]Buchanan’s History, Book XVIII.—His “Detection,” in Anderson’s Collections, vol. ii. p. 6.; and his “Oration,” p. 44.
[144]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 181, et seq. Goodall, vol. i. p. 292, et seq.
[145]Keith, p. 345.
[146]Knox, p. 386—Anderson, vol. i. p. 90—Tytler, vol. ii. p. 39—Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 206-207.
[147]Knox, p. 396, and Chalmers, p. 219.
[148]Knox, p. 392. Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 206 and 218. Laing, vol. i. p. 359. In the first edition of Tytler’s “Vindication,” Bothwell, being confounded with the former Earl, his father, was said to be about fifty-nine at this period. In the second edition, Tytler partly corrected his error, but not entirely; for he stated Bothwell’s age to be forty-three when he married. Chalmers, who is seldom wrong in the matter of dates, has settled the question.
[149]Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 217.
[150]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 183 and 184.
[151]Maitland’s Official Letter to Catherine de Medicis, in Keith, p. 348.
[152]These noblemen, it may be observed, instead of being the friends, were the personal and political enemies of Bothwell, with whom Darnley was less displeased than with them.
[153]Goodall, vol. i. p. 284.—Keith, p. 348.
[154]Le Croc’s Letter in Keith, p. 346.
[155]Maitland’s Letter in Keith, p. 349.
[156]Keith, idem, p. 346 and 349.
[157]Keith, idem, p. 350.
[158]Knox, p. 399.
[159]The turn which Buchanan gives to the whole of this affair, in the work he libellously calls a “History,” scarcely deserves notice. “In the meantime,” he veraciously writes in his Eighteenth Book, “the King, finding no place for favour with his wife, is sent away with injuries and reproaches; and though he often tried her spirit, yet by no offices of observance could he obtain to be admitted to conjugal familiarity as before; whereupon he retired, in discontent, to Stirling.” In his “Detection,” he is still more ludicrously false. “In the meantime,” he writes, “the King commanded out of sight, and with injuries and miseries banished from her, kept himself close with a few of his servants at Stirling; for, alas! what should he else do? He could not creep into any piece of grace with the Queen, nor could get so much as to obtain his daily necessary expenses, to find his servants and horses. And, finally, with brawlings lightly rising for every small trifle, and quarrels, usually picked, he was chased out of her presence; yet his heart, obstinately fixed in loving her, could not be restrained, but he must needs come back to Edinburgh of purpose, with all kind of serviceable humbleness, to get some entry into her former favour, and to recover the kind society of marriage: who once again, with most dishonourable disdain excluded, once again returns from whence he came, there, as in solitary desert, to bewail his woful miseries.” Anderson, vol. ii. p. 9.—Another equally honest record of these times, commonly known by the name of “Murray’s or Cecil’s Journal,” the former having supplied the information to the latter, to answer his own views at a subsequent period, says,—“At this time, the King coming from Stirling,was repulsed with chiding.” The same Journal mentions, that, on the 24th of September, Mary lodged in the Chequer House, and met with Bothwell,—a story which Buchanan disgustingly amplifies in his Detection, though the Privy Council records prove that the Queen lodged in her Palace of Holyrood on the 24th with her Privy Council and officers of state in attendance. As to Buchanan’s complaint, that the King was stinted in his necessary expenses, the treasurer’s accounts clearly show its falsehood. “The fact is,” says Chalmers, “that he was allowed to order, by himself, payments in money and furnishments of necessaries from the public treasurer. And the treasurer’s accounts show that he was amply furnished with necessaries at the very time when those calumnious statements were asserted by men who knew them to be untrue. On two days alone, the 13th and 31st of August, the treasurer, by the King and Queen’s order, was supplied with a vast number of articles for the King’s use alone, amounting to 300l., which is more than the Queen had for six months, even including the necessaries which she had during her confinement.”—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 186. These minute details would be unworthy of attention, did they not serve to prove the difficulty of determining whether Buchanan’s patron, who was also Mary’s Prime Minister, or the Historian himself, possessed the superior talent for misrepresentation.