There were, besides, two circumstances which afforded them peculiar facilities, and of which they were no doubt glad to avail themselves. The first was, that Mary’s hand-writing was not very difficult of imitation. “It was formed,” says Goodall, “after what is commonly called Italic print, which it much resembled both in beauty and regularity.”[259]All the letters being shaped according to certain definite rules, there would be fewer singularities in the writing, and less danger of the forger committing mistakes. Mary herself alluded to the facility with which her hand could be imitated, in her instructions to her Commissioners on the opening of the conferences, and mentioned also another important fact. “In case they allege,” she says, “that they have any writings of mine, which may infer presumption against me, you shall desire the principals to be produced, and that I myself may have inspection thereof, andmake answer thereto. For you shall affirm, in my name, I never wrote any thing concerning that matter to any creature; and if any such writings be, they are false and feigned, forged and invented by themselves, only to my dishonour and slander. And there are divers in Scotland, both men and women, that can counterfeit my hand-writing, and write the like manner of writing which I use, as well as myself, and principally such as are in company with themselves.”[260]“There are sundry who can counterfeit her hand-write,” says Lesley, “who have been brought up in her company, of whom there are some assisting themselves, as well of other nations as of Scotland. And I doubt not but your Majesty,” (he is addressing Elizabeth), “and divers others of your Highness’s Court, has seen sundry letters sent here from Scotland, which would not be known from her own hand-write; and it may be well presumed, in so weighty a cause, that they who have put hands on their Prince, imprisoned her person, and committed such heinous crimes, if a counterfeit letter be sufficient to save them, to maintain their cause, and conquer for them a kingdom, will not leave the same unforged, ‘cum si violandum est jus, imperii causa violandum est.’” In still further confirmation of these facts, Blackwood mentions that the hand-writing of Mary Beaton, one of her maids of honour, could not possibly be distinguished from that of the Queen;[261]and Camden and other contemporary authors speak of it as a matterof established notoriety, that Maitland often counterfeited her hand.[262]
The second facility which the forgers enjoyed, arose from their either possessing among them, or having access to, many genuine letters of Mary. This is a circumstance of some consequence, and has scarcely been sufficiently attended to by the various writers on the subject. It at once obviates Robertson’s cause of wonder, that the letters should be “filled with a multiplicity of circumstances, extremely natural in a real correspondence, but altogether foreign to the purpose of the Queen’s enemies.” In all probability, Mary wrote to her Secretary Maitland from Glasgow, and had of course written to him a hundred times before. There is every reason to believe also, that she corresponded with Maitland’s wife, Mary Fleming, who had been one of her friends and attendants from infancy. Murray must have had in his possession numerous letters from his sister. Where then was the difficulty of founding these forgeries upon writings which were not forgeries, and of making it almost impossible for any one but Mary herself to detect what was genuine in them from what was fabricated? Many passages might be introduced which Mary had actually written, but which she had applied in some very different manner; and here and there might be artfully interwoven a few sentences which she never wrote, but which seemed so naturally connected with the rest, that they fixed upon her soul the guilt of adultery and murder. There is nothing which ought to be more constantly borne in mind, whenever these writingsare read or discussed, than the probability, we might almost say the certainty, that the originals contained parts which had been actually written by Mary, although neither addressed to Bothwell, nor ever meant to be twisted into the sense which was afterwards put upon them; and which appeared the true meaning only, in consequence of their having been so much garbled and disfigured.
Were we disposed to enter still more minutely into an examination of these writings, it would not be difficult to show, as Goodall, Tytler, Whittaker and Chalmers, have in various instances done, that they abound in many other symptoms of forgery, which, though not perhaps conclusive, when taken separately, make up, when combined, a very strong presumption against them. It might be shown, for example,first, that as Mary, in all probability, did not set off for Glasgow till Friday the 24th of January 1567, and staid a night at Callendar on the way, it is quite impossible she could have been at Glasgow on Saturday the 25th, though her second letter ends with these words:—“From Glasgow, this Saturday, in the morning.”[263]She is thus made to have written two letters from Glasgow, one of them a very long one, by Saturday morning; while, in point of fact, she could not have reached that town till Saturday afternoon. “Non sunt hæc satis divisa temporibus.”[264]It might be shown,second, thatthese letters were neither addressed, signed, nor sealed; and that, in the words of Whittaker, “it violates every principle of probability to suppose, that letters with such a plenitude of murderous evidence in them should be sent open.”[265]It might be shown,third, that before the appearance of the letters, they were differently described at different times, as if they were gradually undergoing changes;—that in the Act of Privy Council, in which they are first referred to, they are mentioned as Mary’s “Privy Letters, written andsubscribedwith her own hand;”—but in the Act of Parliament passed a few weeks afterwards, they are only spoken of as “written whollywith her own hand,” not, “written and subscribed;”[266]—that though at first nothing was spoken of as having been found in the box but the “Privy Letters,” “written and subscribed with her own hand,” and afterwards only “wholly written with her own hand,” yet, before the box made its appearance at York, love-sonnets and contracts of marriage were also found in it;—and that at York and Westminster only five letters were laid before the Commissioners, though the number afterwards printed was eight. “Did the three remaining letters,” asks Whittaker, “lie still lower in the box, under the contracts and sonnets, and so escape the notice of the rebels?”[267]It might be shown,fourth, that all the letters are contradicted and overthrown by the first three lines of the ninth sonnet, which are, in French,
——“Pour luy aussi J’ay jeté mainte larme,Premier qu’il fust de ce corps possesseur,Du quel alors il n’avoit pas le cœur;”
and in English—“For him also I shed many a tear, when he first made himself possessor of this body,of which he did not then possess the heart.”[268]In the letters, Mary is made, with the most violent protestations of love, to suggest arrangements for her pretended abduction by Bothwell; yet here she expressly says, that when he first carried her off, he did not possess her heart. How then could she have written him love-letters before this event? These and other things might be insisted on. The sonnets and contracts of marriage might be also minutely examined and proved, both to contradict one another, and to be liable, in a still stronger degree, to almost all the objections which have been advanced against the letters.[269]But it is much better to rest Mary’s innocence on the broad basis of her life and character, and a distinct statement of leading and incontrovertible facts, than on wranglings about dates, or disputations concerning detached incidents and ill-authenticated papers.
From a full review of the proof on both sides, and an ample examination of all the principal facts advanced in the controversy, it appears evident that one of two conclusions must be formed. Either that Mary, having formed a criminalattachment to Bothwell, encouraged him to perpetrate the murder, and that, having thus become responsible for at least an equal share of the guilt, was justly imprisoned and dethroned; or that, never having had any excessive love for Bothwell, she was altogether ignorant of his designs, and irresponsible for his crimes, of which his own lawless ambition made her the victim, and with which the treachery of Murray, Morton and Elizabeth, too successfully contrived to involve her for the remainder of her life. That the latter conclusion is that to which impartial inquiry must inevitably lead, these Memoirs, it is hoped, have sufficiently established. That the arguments in Mary’s favour, drawn from the history of her life and death, are not invalidated by the contents of the “gilt coffer,” it has been the object of the present Examination to prove.
It has been seen, first, by external evidence, that these papers are spurious, because the notorious ambition of Morton and Murray, and the perilous predicament in which it finally placed them, rendered their fabrication necessary to save themselves from ruin,—because Mary could not have written any love-letters or sonnets to Bothwell, for whom, at best, she never felt any thing but common regard, and who was obliged to seize and carry off her person, in order to force her into an unwilling marriage,—because such letters, if they had been written, would not have been preserved by Bothwell, or, if preserved, would have been more numerous,—because the story of their discovery is altogether improbable, since Bothwell, for the most satisfactory reasons, would never have thought of sending for them to the Castle of Edinburgh on the 20th of June1567,—because not a word was said about them long after they were discovered, but, on the contrary, motives quite inconsistent with their contents assigned for sequestrating Mary’s person in Loch-Leven,—because, though Dalgleish was tried, condemned, and executed, not a question was put to him, as appears by his examination, still extant, concerning these letters,—because the originals were only produced twice, andthatunder suspicious and unsatisfactory circumstances,—because nothing but translations, and translations from translations, of these originals, now exist, from which no fair arguments can be drawn,—because Murray and his associates have been convicted of open forgery in several other instances, and are therefore the more liable to be doubted in this,—because Bothwell not only never accused Mary, but was unable to show Morton any writing of her’s sanctioning the murder, and, by subsequent declarations, seems to have exculpated her from all share in it,—because Mary herself invariably denied that she had ever written such letters, undertaking to prove that they were fabrications, if the originals, or even copies, were shown to her,—because Lady Lennox, Darnley’s mother, many of the most respectable of the Scottish nobility, Norfolk, and a numerous party in England, and all her Continental friends, avowed their belief of her innocence,—because the confessions and depositions of Bothwell’s accomplices, so far from implicating, tended to acquit her of all blame, though the persons by whom the depositions were made had every inducement to accuse her, if it had been in their power,—and because the externalevidence, advanced in support of the letters by Robertson and others, is entirely nugatory.
It has been seen, second, by internal evidence, that the Letters are spurious,—because the translations differ from each other,—because the style and composition of many passages, are not such as could ever have come from Mary’s pen,—because every facility was given to forgery by the nature of her handwriting, and by the access which the forgers had to genuine letters and papers, of which they could make a partial use,—because, at the time in which they are alleged to have been written, Mary was, in all probability, not at the places from which they are dated,—because the letters contradict each other, and are all contradicted by the sonnets,—and because the arguments in support of them, drawn from internal evidence by Robertson and others, are equally inconclusive with their external proofs.
If Mary’s innocence, from all the blacker crimes with which she has been charged, must still continue matter of doubt, it is not too much to declare all history uncertain, and virtue and vice merely convertible terms.
Through the kindness of William Traill, Esq. of Woodwick, Orkney, we are enabled to give the following authentic genealogical account of the manner in which the interesting portrait of Mary Queen of Scots, engraved for this Work, and particularly described in Vol. I. Chap. IV., came into the possession of his family.
“Sir Robert Stewart of Strathdon, son of King James V., by Eupham, daughter of Alexander, 1st Lord Elphingston, obtained a grant of the Crown lands of Orkney and Shetland from his sister Queen Mary in 1565. He was created Earl of Orkney by his uncle James VI., 28th October 1581. He married Lady Jean Kennedy, daughter of Gilbert, fourth Earl of Cassils.
“George Traill, son of the Laird of Blebo in Fife, married, first, Jean Kennedy of Carmunks, a relative of the Earl’s Lady. He accompanied the Earl to Orkney; got a grant from the Earl of the lands of Quandale, in the Island of Ronsay, and, as stewart or factor, managed the affairs of the earldom. By Jean Kennedy he had one son, the first Thomas Traill of Holland. He afterwards married Isobel Craigie of Gairsay, by whom he had James Traill of Quandale, who married Ann Baikie of Burness. Lady Barbara Stewart, the Earl’s youngest daughter, married Hugh Halcro of Halcro, a descendant of the Royal Family of Denmark, and who possessed a great part of the Islands of Orkney. For her patrimony, the Earl wadset to Halcro lands, in Widewall, Ronaldsvoe, and in South Ronaldshay, which lands were afterwards redeemed by Patrick Stewart, the Earl’s eldest son, 1598.VideBishop Law’s Rentall 1614. Lady Barbara, being the youngest and the last of the Earl’s family, succeeded to her father’s furniture, plate, pictures, and other moveables, and amongst the rest, the family picture of Queen Mary. Hugh Halcro of that Ilk, the eldest son of this marriage, succeeded his father, and married Jean, daughter of William Stewart of Mains and Burray.Vid.Charters 1615 and 1620. In 1644, this Hugh Halcro executed a settlement in favour of Hugh his Oye, and his heirs; whom failing, to Patrick his brother; whom failing, to Harry fiar of Aikrs; whom failing, to Edward of Hauton; whom all failing, to the name of Halcro. Hugh the Oye, married Margaret, daughter of James Stewart of Gromsay.Vid.Charter by him in her favour of lands in South Ronaldshay and the Island Cava, 12th June 1630. Their son, Hugh Halcro of that Ilk, married Barbara Greem, by whom he had two daughters, Jean and Sibella Halcro. Jean married Alexander Mouat Swenze, and Sibella married James Baikie of Burness; and the estate of Halcro was divided between these families by decreet-arbitral, 21st and 22d December 1677,—Arthur Baikie of Tankerness, and John Kennaday of Carmunks, arbiters; which decreet is in the possession of the present William Traill of Woodwick, Esquire, as is the picture of Queen Mary, and other family relics.”
END OF VOLUME SECOND.
PRINTED BY J. HUTCHISON,FOR THE HEIRS OF D. WILLISON.
Footnotes:
[1]Robertson, Appendix to vol. i. No. XVII.
[2]Keith, Appendix, p. 139.
[3]Keith, Preface, p. vii.
[4]Melville’s Memoirs, p. 170.
[5]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 316.—Keith, p. 355; Appendix, p. 136.—Anderson, vol. ii. p. 270. vol. iv. p. 183 and 188.—“Martyre de Marie,” in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 210. It would be difficult to explain why Robertson, who, in the Dissertation subjoined to his History, allows the authenticity of the documents which detail the particulars of this important conference at Craigmillar, should not have taken the slightest notice of it in his History. There is surely something indicative of partiality in the omission. Miss Benger, who is not always over-favourable to Mary, remarks on her decision regarding a divorce;—“It is difficult to develope the motives of Mary’s refusal. Had she secretly loved Bothwell, she would probably have embraced the means of liberty; and had she already embarked in a criminal intrigue, she would not have resisted the persuasions of her paramour. If, influenced alone by vindictive feelings, she sought her husband’s life, she must have been sensible that, when the nuptial tie was dissolved, he would be more easily assailable. Why then did she recoil from the proposal, unless she feared to compromise herself by endangering Darnley’s safety, or that some sentiments of affection still lingered in her heart? It has been supposed, that she dreaded the censures which might be passed on her conduct in France; or that she feared to separate her interests from those of her husband, lest she should injure her title to the English crown. All these objections are valid when addressed to reason, but passion would have challenged stronger arguments.”—Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 301.—Blackwood, in hisMartyre de Marie, mentions, that Mary upon this occasion told her nobility, that “her husband was yet young, and might be brought back to the right path, having left it principally in consequence of the bad advice of those who were no less his enemies than her’s.”—“This answer,” adds Blackwood, “was far from being agreeable to the Lords, proving to them that her Majesty’s present estrangement from her husband was more from the necessity of the times, than because she had ceased to love him.”
[6]Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 173.—Keith, Preface, p. vii.
[7]The above transaction, in which there is so little mystery, has been converted by Robertson into “a negociation, secretly carried on by Mary, for subverting the Reformed Church.” He cannot, it is true, very easily reconcile the “negotiation” with the fact that, “at the very time, she did not scruple publicly to employ her authority towards obtaining for the ministers of that Church a more certain and comfortable subsistence.” “During this year,” he tells us, “she issued several proclamations and Acts of Council for that purpose, and readily approved of every scheme which was proposed for the more effectual payment of their stipends.” The historian might have inquired a little more closely into the real nature of her correspondence with the Court of Rome, before charging Mary with “falsehood and deceit,” and availing himself of the subject to point a moral.
[8]Keith, p. 359.
[9]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 271.
[10]That Darnley was actually absent upon this occasion, we are not quite satisfied. Robertson says he was, on the authority of Le Croc’s letter in Keith, preface, p. vii.; and after him, most writers on the subject state the fact as beyond a doubt. All, however, that Le Croc says is this:—“The King had still given out, that he would depart two days before the baptism; but when the time came on, he made no sign of removing at all, only he still kept close within his own apartment. The very day of the baptism, he sent three several times, desiring me either to come and see him, or to appoint him an hour, that he might come to me in my lodgings.” This is no direct evidence that the King was absent from the christening. Neither does Buchanan furnish us with any; he merely says, with his usual accuracy and love of calumny, that “her lawful husband was not allowed necessaries at the christening; nay, was forbid to come in sight of the ambassadors, who were advised not to enter into discourse with the King, though they were in the same part of the castle the most part of the day.”—History, Book XVIII. Nor does Knox say any thing definite upon the subject; but Keith, Crawford, and Spottswood, though not referred to by Robertson, seem to support his opinion. Let the fact, however, be as it may, it is not of great consequence. The erroneousness of the popular belief, that Darnley, during the whole of this time, resided in a citizen’s house in the town of Stirling, is more deserving of being pointed out and corrected.
[11]Knox, p. 400.—Keith, Preface, p. vii.
[12]Keith, p. 369.—Knox, p. 400.—The Historie of King James the Sext, p. 5.
[13]Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 176.
[14]Melville, p. 192.
[15]The Ruthven here spoken of is the son of the Lord Ruthven, who took so active a part in the murder.
[16]Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 175 and 342.
[17]Keith—Preface, p. viii.
[18]Keith, p. 364.
[19]Keith, p. 151.—Laing, vol. ii. p. 76.—Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 268.—Whittaker, in endeavouring to prove (vol. ii. p. 322) that the Catholic Ecclesiastical Courts had never been deprived of their jurisdiction, and that, consequently, there was norestorationof power to the Archbishop of St Andrews, evidently takes an erroneous view of this matter. In direct opposition to such a view, Knox, or his continuator, has the following account of the transaction:—“At the same time, the Bishop of St Andrews, by means of the Earl of Bothwell, procured a writing from the Queen’s Majesty, to be obeyed within the Diocess of his Jurisdiction, in all such causes as before, in time of Popery, were used in the Consistory, and, therefore, to discharge the new Commissioners; and for the same purpose, came to Edinburgh in January, having a company of one hundred horses, or more, intending to take possession according to his gift lately obtained. The Provost being advertised thereof by the Earl of Murray, they sent to the Bishop three or four of the Council, desiring him to desist from the said matter, for fear of trouble and sedition that might rise thereupon; whereby he was persuaded to desist at that time.”—Knox, p. 403. This account is not quite correct, in so far as the Earl of Murray alone, unsupported by Mary’s authority, is described as having diverted the Archbishop from his purpose.
[20]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 199; and vol. ii. p. 176.
[21]Keith, Preface p. viii.
[22]Anderson, vol. iv. p. 165.—Goodall, vol. ii. p. 76.
[23]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 76.—et seq.
[24]Birrel’s Dairy, p. 6.—Laing, vol. i. p. 30.
[25]Keith, p. 364.—Anderson, vol. ii. p. 67.—Goodall, vol. ii. p. 244.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 203.—vol. ii. p. 180, and 271.—Laing, vol. i. p. 30.—and vol. ii. p. 17.—Whittaker, vol. iii. p. 258, and 283.—Arnot’s History of Edinburgh, p. 237. Whittaker has made several mistakes regarding the House of the Kirk-of-Field. He describes it as much larger than it really was; and, misled by the appearance of a gun-port still remaining in one part of the old wall, and which Arnot supposed had been the postern-door in the gavel of the house, he fixes its situation at too great a distance from the College, and too near the Infirmary. Sir Walter Scott, in his “Tales of a Grandfather,” (vol. iii. p. 187.) has oddly enough fallen into the error of describing the Kirk-of-Field, as standing “justwithoutthe walls of the city.”
[26]Morton’s Confession in Laing, vol. ii. p. 354; and Archibald Douglas’s Letter, ibid. p. 363.
[27]Idem.
[28]Lesley’s Defence in Anderson, vol. i. p. 75.—Buchanan’s History, p. 350.—Laing, vol. ii. p. 34.
[29]Ormiston’s Confession in Laing, vol. ii. p. 322.
[30]Paris’s Confession in Laing, vol. ii. p. 298-9.
[31]Paris’s Deposition in Laing, vol. ii. p. 296.
[32]Laing, vol. ii. p. 282 and 370.
[33]Deposition of Hepburn—Anderson, vol. ii. p. 183.
[34]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 183.
[35]Keith, Preface, p. viii.
[36]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 179.
[37]Ibid. vol. ii. p. 184.
[38]Laing, Appendix, p. 304.
[39]Deposition of John Hay in Anderson, vol. ii. p. 177.
[40]Deposition of William Powrie, in Anderson, vol. ii. p. 165.
[41]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 183.
[42]Ibid. vol. ii. p. 181.
[43]Buchanan’sHistory, Book XVIII. may be compared with hisDetectionin Anderson, vol. i. p. 22 and 72.
[44]Buchanan’sHistory, Book XVIII.
[45]Freebairn’s Life of Mary, p. 112 and 114.
[46]Deposition of Paris in Laing, vol. ii. p. 305.
[47]Evidence of Thomas Nelson, Anderson, vol. iv. p. 165.
[48]The Confessions and Depositions in Anderson, vol. ii. and vol. iv; and in Laing, vol. ii.
[49]Melville’s Memoirs, p. 174. Lesley in Anderson, vol. i. p. 24. Freebairn, p. 115.
[50]Anderson, vol. i. p. 36.—Goodall, vol. ii. p. 245.
[51]Laing, vol. ii. p. 289 et 290.
[52]Historie of King James the Sext, p. 6.
[53]Miss Benger, vol. ii. p. 313.
[54]Sanderson’s Life of Mary, p. 48.—Freebairn, p. 113.
[55]Knox, p. 404.
[56]Keith, p. 365.
[57]Melville, p. 174.
[58]The notion that the powder, with which the Kirk-of-Field was blown up, had been placed in a mine, dug for the purpose, was for a while very prevalent. Mary, of course, never suspected that it had been put into her own bedroom; but the truth came out as soon as the depositions of Bothwell’s accomplices were published. Why Whittaker should still have continued to believe that a mine had been excavated, it is difficult to understand. Laing very justly ridicules the absurdity of such a belief.
[59]There is a sincere piety in this rejection of the word “chance.” Mary was steadily religious all her life, and certainly nothing but a pure and upright spirit could have induced her, on the present occasion, to appeal to her Creator, and say, “It was not chance, but God.”
[60]Keith, Preface, p. viii.
[61]Anderson, vol. i. p. 36.
[62]Lesley in Anderson, vol. i. p. 23.
[63]Keith, p. 368.
[64]Laing’s remarks upon this subject, are exceedingly weak. He seems to suppose that Mary, for the mere sake of appearances, ought to have thrown into prison some of her most powerful nobility. He adds,—“If innocent, she must have suspected somebody, and the means of detection were evidently in her hands. The persons who provided or furnished the lodging,—the man to whom the house belonged,—the servants of the Queen, who were intrusted with the keys,—the King’s servants who had previously withdrawn, or were preserved, at his death,—her brother, Lord Robert, who had apprised him of his danger, were the first objects for suspicion or inquiry; and their evidence would have afforded the most ample detection.” Laing does not seem to be aware, that he is here suggesting the very steps which Mary actually took. She had not, indeed, herself examined witnesses, which would have been alike contrary to her general habits and her feelings at the time; but she had ordered the legal authorities to assemble every day, till they ascertained all the facts which could be collected. Nor does Laing seem to remember, that Bothwell had it in his power to exercise over these legal authorities no inconsiderable control, and to prevail upon them, as he in truth did, to garble and conceal several circumstances of importance which came out.
[65]Killigrew, the English ambassador, sent by Elizabeth to offer her condolence, mentions, that he “found the Queen’s Majesty in a dark chamber so as he could not see her face, but by her words she seemed very doleful.”—Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 209.
[66]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 208.
[67]Videthese Letters in Anderson, vol. i. p. 40, or Keith, p. 369.
[68]Anderson, vol. i. p. 50.
[69]Goodall, vol. i. p. 346,et seq.
[70]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 209. The above fact is no proof, as Chalmers alleges, that Murray was connected with the conspirators; but it shows, that whatever his own suspicions or belief were, he did not choose to discountenance Bothwell. Could Mary ever suppose that thegodlyEarl of Murray would entertain a murderer at his table?
[71]Anderson, vol. i. p. 52.
[72]Robertson—Appendix to vol. i. No. XIX.
[73]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 103.
[74]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 104, et seq.—and Keith, p. 375, et seq.
[75]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 157.
[76]Anderson, vol. i. p. 107; and Keith, p. 381.
[77]Keith, p. 382.—There are extant two lists of the names of the subscribers, and these differ in one or two particulars from each other; but the one was only a list given to Cecil from memory by John Reid, Buchanan’s clerk; the other is a document authenticated by the subscription of Sir James Balfour, who was at the time Clerk of Register and Privy Council. The chief difference between these two copies is, that Reid’s list contains the name of the Earl of Murray, though on the 20th of April he was out of the realm of Scotland. It has been supposed that the bond, though not produced, might have been drawn up some time before, and that Murray put his name to it before going away. This is possible, but, considering Murray’s cautious character, not probable. The point does not seem one of great importance, though by those who are anxious to make out a case against Murray rather than against Bothwell, it is deemed necessary to insist upon it at length. Perhaps Bothwell forged Murray’s signature, to give his bond greater weight both with the nobles and with the Queen; although one name more or less could not make much difference either to her or them.
[78]Keith, p. 390.
[79]Keith, p. 383.—Melville’s Memoirs, p. 177.—Whittaker, vol. iii. p. 106 and 356.
[80]Melville, p. 177.
[81]Keith, p. 390.
[82]Anderson, vol. i. p. 97.—Keith, p. 390.
[83]Melville, p. 197.
[84]Anderson, vol. i. p. 95.
[85]Anderson, vol. i. p. 95.
[86]Anderson, vol. i. p. 97. et seq. There is something so peculiar in the last passage quoted above, and Bothwell’s conduct was so despotic, during the whole of the time he had Mary’s person at his disposal, that Whittaker’s supposition seems by no means unlikely, that theforceto which Mary alludes was of the most culpable and desperate kind. “Throughout the whole of the Queen’s own account of these transactions,” he observes, “the delicacy of the lady, and the prudence of the wife, are in a continual struggle with facts,—willing to lay open the whole for her own vindication, yet unable to do it for her own sake and her husband’s, and yet doing it in effect.” Vide Whittaker, vol. iii. p. 112. et seq.—Melville is still more explicit upon the subject, p. 177. And in a letter from “the Lords of Scotland,” written to the English ambassador, six weeks after the ravishment, it is expressly said, that “the Queen was led captive, and by fear, force, and (as by many conjectures may be well suspected) other extraordinary and more unlawful means, compelled to become the bedfellow to another wife’s husband.”—See the letter in Keith p. 418.
[87]Vide Laing, vol. i. p. 86, and vol. ii. p. 105, and Whittaker, vol. iii. p. 116.
[88]Keith, p. 383.
[89]History of James VI., p. 10.—Buchanan’s History, Book XVII.—Keith, p. 384.—Whittaker, vol. iii. p. 120.
[90]“I plainly refused,” says Craig, in his account of this matter, which still remains among the records of the General Assembly, “because he (Hepburn) had not her handwriting; and also the constant bruit that my Lord had both ravished her and kept her in captivity.”—Anderson, vol. ii. p. 299.
[91]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 280.
[92]Anderson, vol. i. p. 111.—Keith, p. 384.
[93]Anderson, vol. i. p. 87.
[94]History of James VI. p. 10.—Keith, p. 386.—Melville, p. 78.—Whittaker, vol. iii. p. 127. et seq. Upon this subject, Lord Hailes has judiciously remarked:—“After Mary had remained a fortnight under the power of a daring profligate adventurer, few foreign princes would have solicited her hand. Some of her subjects might still have sought that honour, but her compliance would have been humiliating beyond measure. It would have left her at the mercy of a capricious husband,—it would have exposed her to the disgrace of being reproached in some sullen hour, for the adventure at Dunbar. Mary was so situated, at this critical period, that she was reduced to this horrid alternative, either to remain in a friendless and most hazardous celibacy, or to yield her hand to Bothwell.”—Remarks on the History of Scotland,p.204.
[95]Melville, p. 178.
[96]Letter from the Lords of Scotland to Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, in Keith, p. 417.
[97]Melville, p. 180.
[98]Melville, p. 199.
[99]Keith, p. 394.—Melville, p. 179.—Knox, p. 406.
[100]Anderson, vol. i. p. 131.
[101]Anderson, vol. i. p. 128.
[102]Knox, p. 409.
[103]Laing, Appendix, p. 115.
[104]Laing, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 116. Knox says that it was Bothwell who drew back; but the authority to which we have referred is more to be depended on.
[105]Melville, p. 182.
[106]Laing, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 116.
[107]Keith, p. 402.
[108]Keith, p. 403.—Melville, p. 184.—Knox, p. 409.—Laing, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 117.
[109]Laing, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 119.—Anderson, vol. i. p. 128.—Keith, p. 418.
[110]Anderson, vol. i. p. 134.
[111]Keith, p. 408.
[112]Buchanan’s History, Book XVIII.
[113]Keith, p. 406, et seq.
[114]Anderson, vol. i. p. 139.
[115]The above account of Bothwell’s adventures and fate, after he left Scotland, is taken principally from Melville, and the History of James VI. But an interesting and original manuscript, entitled a “Declaration of the Earl of Bothwell,” which was made at Copenhagen, in the year 1568, for the satisfaction apparently of the Danish government, has recently been discovered, and an authenticated copy of it having been transmitted to this country in August 1824, a careful translation from the old French in which it is written, was presented to the public in “The New Monthly Magazine,” for June 1825. Satisfied as we are of the authenticity of this “Declaration,” we have availed ourselves of some of the information it supplies, though, of course, great allowance must be made for the colouring Bothwell has artfully given to the transactions he details. We shall have more to say of this “Declaration” afterwards; at present, it is necessary only to refer to it.
[116]Keith, p. 411 and 414.
[117]Keith, p. 418. It is worth noticing, that no proof of this absurd falsehood is offered—no allusion being even made to the letter which had been shown to Grange, and which, though only the first of a series of forgeries, yet having been hastily prepared to serve the purpose of the hour, seems to have been destroyed immediately.
[118]Keith, Ibid.
[119]Keith, p. 420.
[120]Throckmorton’s Letter in Keith, p. 420, et seq.
[121]Melville’s Memoirs, p. 197.
[122]Whittaker, vol. i. p. 228.
[123]Throckmorton in Keith, p. 422.
[124]Robertson, Appendix to vol. i. No. XXI.
[125]Robertson, Appendix to vol. i. No. XXII.
[126]Throckmorton, in one of his letters, mentions explicitly, that Mary had given him the very reasons stated above for refusing to renounce Bothwell. But as Throckmorton could communicate with Mary only through the channel of the rebel Lords, who, he says, “had sent him word,” it is not at all improbable, that her message may have been a good deal garbled by the way. The passage in Throckmorton’s letter is as follows:—“I have also persuaded her to conform herself to renounce Bothwell for her husband, and to be contented to suffer a divorce to pass betwixt them. She hath sent me word, that she will in no wise consent unto that, but rather die: grounding herself upon this reason, taking herself to be seven weeks gone with child; by renouncing Bothwell, she should acknowledge herself to be with child of a bastard, and to have forfeited her honour, which she will not do to die for it. I have persuaded her to save her own life and her child, to choose the least hard condition.” Robertson—Appendix to vol. i. No. XXII. It was, perhaps, this passage in Throckmorton’s despatch to England, that gave rise to a vulgar rumour, which was of course much improved by the time it reached France. Le Laboureur, an historian of much respectability, actually asserts that the Queen of Scots had a daughter to Bothwell, who was educated as a religieuse in the Convent of Notre Dame at Soissons.VideLaboureur Addit. aux Mem. de Castelnau, p. 610. Of course, the assertion is altogether unfounded.
[127]Some historians have asserted, that Lord Ruthven accompanied the two Commissioners mentioned in the text. But this is not the case, for he was present at a conference with the English ambassador, Throckmorton, on the very day the others were at Lochleven. Throckmorton in Keith, p. 426.
[128]Pennant, in his “Tour in Scotland,” thus describes Lochleven, and the island where the Queen resided:—“Lochleven, a magnificent piece of water, very broad but irregularly indented; is about twelve miles in circumference, and its greatest depth about twenty-four fathoms. Some islands are dispersed in this great expanse of water, one of which is large enough to feed several head of cattle; but the most remarkable is that distinguished by the captivity of Mary Stuart, which stands almost in the middle of the lake. The castle still remains, consists of asquare tower, a small yard with two round towers, a chapel, and the ruins of a building, where (it is said) the unfortunate Princess was lodged. In the square tower is aDUNGEON, with a vaulted room above, over which had been three other stories.”—Tour in Scotland, vol. i. p. 64.
[129]Keith, p. 431.
[130]Keith, p. 426.—Whittaker, vol. i. p. 299.
[131]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 166, and 344.
[132]Leslie, p. 37.—Jebb, vol. ii. p. 221 and 222.
[133]Goodall, ibid.—Freebairn, p. 147.—Whittaker, vol. i. p. 301.et seq.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 248.
[134]Keith, p. 436.
[135]History of James VI. p. 17. Keith, p. 438.
[136]Melville’s Memoirs, p. 193. Keith, p. 442. et seq.
[137]Throckmorton’s Letter in Keith, p. 444 et seq.
[138]What Mark Antony, according to Shakespeare, said of Cæsar, might be, with propriety, applied to the Earl of Murray:
“You all did see that, on the Lupercal,I thrice presented him a kingly crown,Which he did thrice refuse.—Was this ambition?”
[139]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 251 and 254.—Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 355.
[140]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 66.—Anderson, vol. ii. p. 206 et seq.
[141]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 299, and Chalmers, vol. i. p. 275 and 278.
[142]Jebb, vol. ii. p. 230.—Keith, p. 471—and Chalmers, vol. i. p. 275.
[143]Sir William Drury’s Letter in Keith, p. 470.
[144]Buchanan’s Cameleon, p. 13.
[145]Jebb, vol. ii. p. 65 and 230.—Keith, p. 471.—Freebairn, p. 152, et seq.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 277, et seq. The interest taken in Queen Mary by George Douglas, is ascribed by Mackenzie to a motive less pure than the affection of a good subject. His chief characteristic, we are told by that author, was an excessive love of money, and it was by bribing him, he asserts, with the best part of what gold and jewels she had about her, that Mary prevailed upon him to assist her. But this statement does not seem well authenticated. Another story, still more improbable, was told by the Earl of Murray to the English ambassador, Sir William Drury, namely, that Mary had entreated him to allow her to have a husband, and had named George Douglas as the person she would wish to marry. Murray must have fabricated this falsehood, in order to lower the dignity of the Queen; but he surely forgot that the reason assigned in justification of her imprisonment in Loch-Leven, was her alleged determination not to consent to a separation from Bothwell. How then did she happen to wish to marry another? See Sir William Drury’s Letter in Keith, p. 469.
[146]Keith, p. 472, et seq.
[147]Buchanan, Book xix.—Melville’s Memoirs, p. 200. et seq.—Keith, p. 477.—Calderwood, Crawfurd, and Holinshed. The accounts which historians give of this battle are so confused and contradictory, that it is almost impossible to furnish any very distinct narrative of it, even by collating them all. Robertson hardly attempts any detail, and the few particulars which he does mention, are in several instances erroneous.
[148]Keith, p. 481 and 482.—Anderson, vol. iv. p. 1.
[149]Anderson, vol. iv. p. 1. et seq.—Keith, p. 481.
[150]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 69.
[151]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 283.
[152]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 71.
[153]Anderson, vol. iv. p. 6.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 288. Even at Carlisle, Mary was always strictly watched. In one of his letters to Cecil, Knollys writes thus:—“Yesterday, her Grace went out at a postern, to walk on the playing green, towards Scotland; and we, with twenty-two halberdeers, diverse gentlemen and other servants, waited upon her. About twenty of her retinue played at foot-ball before her the space of two hours, very strongly, nimbly, and skilfully,—without any foul play offered, the smallness of their ball occasioning their fair play. And before yesterday, since our coming, she went but twice out of the town, once to the like play of foot-ball, in the same place, and once she rode out a hunting the hare, she galloping so fast upon every occasion, and her whole retinue being so well horsed, that we, upon experience thereof, doubting that, upon a set course, some of her friends out of Scotland might invade and assault us upon the sudden, for to rescue and take her from us; we mean hereafter, if any such riding pastimes be required that way, so much to fear the endangering of her person by some sudden invasion of her enemies, that she must hold us excused, in that behalf.”
[154]Anderson, vol. iv. p. 95.—Stuart, vol. i. p. 300. It is of Dr Stuart’s translation that we have availed ourselves.
[155]Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 33.
[156]Buchanan, book xix. It is worth remarking, that of these particular friends of Murray, the two Commissioners, Lord Lindsay and the Commendator of Dunfermlin, and the two lawyers, Macgill and Balnaves, sat on the trial of Bothwell when he was unanimously acquitted. Yet they afterwards accused the Queen of consenting to an unfair trial.
[157]Anderson, vol. iv. Part ii. p. 3.
[158]Anderson, vol. iv. Part I. p. 12.
[159]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 128.
[160]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 144.
[161]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 162.
[162]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 62.
[163]We do not at present stop the course of our narrative to examine these letters more minutely, but we shall devote some time to their consideration afterwards.
[164]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 182.
[165]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 184.
[166]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 206.
[167]Ibid. p. 220.
[168]Ibid. p. 221.
[169]Ibid. p. 184 and 206.
[170]Ibid. p. 283.
[171]Ibid. p. 312.
[172]Ibid. p. 300 and 301.
[173]There is one other circumstance connected with this conference, which, though not bearing any immediate reference to Mary, is worth mentioning. We allude to the challenges which passed between Lord Lindsay, one of Murray’s Commissioners, and Lord Herries, one of Mary’s most constant and faithful servants. Lindsay, whose passionate violence we have formerly had occasion to notice, attempted to force a quarrel upon Herries, by writing him the following letter:
“Lord Herries,—I am informed that you have spoken and affirmed, that my Lord Regent’s Grace and his company here present, were guilty of the abominable murder of the late King, our Sovereign Lord’s father. If you have so spoken, you have said untruly, and have lied in your throat, which I will maintain, God willing, against you, as becomes me of honour and duty. And hereupon I desire your answer. Subscribed with my hand, at Kingston, the twenty-second day of December 1568.Patrick Lindsay.”
To this epistle Lord Herries made the following spirited reply:
“Lord Lindsay,—I have seen a writing of yours, the 22d of December, and thereby understand,—‘You are informed that I have said and affirmed, that the Earl of Murray, whom you call your Regent, and his company, are guilty of the Queen’s husband’s slaughter, father to our Prince; and if I said it, I have lied in my throat, which you will maintain against me as becomes you of honour and duty.’ In respect they have accused the Queen’s Majesty, mine and your native Sovereign, of that foul crime, far from the duty that good subjects owed, or ever have been seen to have done to their native Sovereign,—I have said—‘There is of that company present with the Earl of Murray, guilty of that abominable treason, in the fore-knowledge and consent thereto.’ That you were privy to it, Lord Lindsay, I know not; and if you will say that I have specially spoken of you, you lie in your throat; and that I will defend as of my honour and duty becomes me. But let any of the principal that is of them subscribe the like writing you have sent to me, and I shall point them forth, and fight with some of the traitors therein; for meetest it is that traitors should pay for their own treason.Herries.London, 22d of December 1568.”
No answer appears to have been returned to this letter, and so the affair was dropped.—Goodall, vol. ii. p. 271.
[174]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 313.
[175]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 327.
[176]Chalmers, vol. i. p. 332.
[177]Anderson, vol. i. p. 80.
[178]Strype, vol. i. p. 538.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 337.
[179]Stranguage, p. 114.
[180]Goodall, vol. ii. p. 375.—Anderson, vol. ii. p. 261.—Stuart, vol. ii. p. 59.—Chalmers, vol. i. p. 349.
[181]Anderson, vol. iii. p. 248.
[182]See “An Account of the Life and Actions of the Reverend Father in God, John Lesley, Bishop of Ross,” in Anderson, vol. iii. p. vii.
[183]Miss Benger, vol. ii. p. 439.
[184]Additions to the Memoirs of Castelnau, p. 589, et seq.
[185]Laing, vol. ii. p. 285.
Alas! what am I?—what avails my life?Does not my body live without a soul?—A shadow vain—the sport of anxious strife,That wishes but to die, and end the whole.Why should harsh enmity pursue me more?The false world’s greatness has no charms for me;Soon will the struggle and the grief be o’er;—Soon the oppressor gain the victory.Ye friends! to whose remembrance I am dear,No strength to aid you, or your cause, have I;Cease then to shed the unavailing tear,—I have not feared to live, nor dread to die;Perchance the pain that I have suffered here,May win me more of bliss thro’ God’s eternal year.