not moved with the unfavourable representations which the partisans
of Mary have given of Murray, nor am I surprised at the cold manner
in which Mr Hume has spoken of him; but I confess that it pains me
to think of the way in which Dr Robertson has drawn his character.
The faint praise which he has bestowed on him, the doubt which he has
thrown over his moral qualities, and the unqualified censures which
he has pronounced upon some parts of his conduct, have, I am afraid,
done more injury to the regent’s memory, than the exaggerated accounts
of his adversaries. History of Scotland, vol. ii. 315, 316. Lond.
1809. Having said this much, it will be expected that I shall be more
particular. In addition to those qualities which “even his enemies
allow him to have possessed in an eminent degree,” Dr R. mentions
his humanity, his distinguished patronage of learning, and impartial
administration of justice. “Zealous for religion,” he adds, “to a
degree which distinguished him even at a time when professions of that
kind were not uncommon.” This is what every person must allow, but
it certainly is far from doing justice to this part of the regent’s
character. His professions of religion were uniformly supported in
all the different situations in which he was placed; his strict regard
to divine institutions was accompanied with the most correct and
exemplary morals; his religious principle triumphed over a temptation
which proved too powerful for almost all the protestant nobility.
(See above, p. 290.) When there exist such proofs of sincerity, to
withhold the tribute due to it is injurious not only to the individual,
but to the general interests of religion. After bearing {336} a
decided testimony to the “disinterested passion for the liberty of
his country,” which prompted Murray to oppose the pernicious system
of the princes of Lorrain, and the “zeal and affection” with which he
served Mary on her return to Scotland, the historian adds:――“But, on
the other hand, his ambition was immoderate; and events happened that
opened to him vast projects, which allured his enterprising genius,
and led him to actions inconsistent with the duty of a subject.”
That his ambition was “immoderate” does not, I think, appear from
any evidence which has been produced. Dr R. has defended him from the
charge as brought against him at an earlier period of his life, and we
have met with facts that serve to corroborate the defence. (See vol. i.
p. 443.) The “vast projects” that opened to him must be limited to
the attainment of the regency; for I do not think that Dr R. ever for
a moment gave credit to the ridiculous tale, that he designed to set
aside the young king, and seat himself upon the throne. His acceptance
of the regency cannot be pronounced “inconsistent with the duty of
a subject,” without determining the question, Whether the nation was
warranted, by the misconduct and crimes of Mary, to remove her from
the government, and to crown her son. “Her boldest advocates,” says
Mr Laing, “will not venture to assert, that, on the supposition
of the fact being fully proved, that she was notoriously guilty of
her husband’s murder, she was entitled to be restored.” History of
Scotland, i. 137, second edition. Murray was fully satisfied of her
guilt before he accepted the regency. Never was any person raised
to such a high station with less evidence of his having ambitiously
courted the preferment. Instead of remaining in the country to
turn the embroiled state of affairs to his personal advantage, he,
within two months after the murder of the king, left Scotland, not
clandestinely, but after having asked and obtained leave. And whither
did he retire? Not into England, to concert measures with that court,
or the more easily to carry on a correspondence with the friends whom
he had left behind him; but into France, where his motions could be
watched by the friends of Mary. Ibid. p. 59‒61. The association for
revenging the king’s murder, and for preserving the young prince,
the surrender of Mary, and her imprisonment in Lochleven, followed so
unexpectedly and so {337} rapidly, that they could not have proceeded
from his direction. Nay, there is positive evidence that the lords who
had imprisoned Mary, so far from having acted in concert with Murray,
were suspicious that he would counteract their designs. “As yet theys
lordes wyll not suffer Mr Nycholas Elveston, sent from the L. of
Murrey, to have access to the quene, nor to send my L. of Murrey’s
letter unto her.” Throkmorton’s Letters to Cecil, and to Elizabeth,
16th July, 1567, apud Laing’s History of Scotland, ii. Append. No. 13,
p. 121, 126. When he returned to Scotland, he found that the queen
had executed formal deeds resigning the government, and appointing
him regent during the minority of her son, and that the young prince
was already crowned. Hume, vol. v. Note K.
“His treatment of the queen, to whose bounty he was so much indebted,
was unbrotherly and ungrateful.” To the charge of ingratitude, I
can only reply, by repeating what I have said in the text, that all
the honours which she conferred on him were not too great a reward
for the important services which he had rendered her. How often have
persons been celebrated for sacrificing parental as well as brotherly
affection to the public good! The probable reasons for Murray’s
interview with the queen in Lochleven have been stated by Mr Laing.
History, i. 119‒121. Were I to speak of what was incumbent on him as
a _christian_ brother with the view of bringing her to a just sense of
the iniquity of her conduct, I would use language which, I am afraid,
would not be understood by many readers, and which many professed
christians seem to forget, when they talk on this subject. Any
exertions which were necessary to save his sister’s life were not
wanting on the part of Murray. To restore her to the government, or
even, as matters then stood, to restore her to liberty, he was not
bound by any ties either of a public or private kind. Had he amused
her with the hopes of this, he might have escaped the charge of
harshness, but his conduct would have been more unbrotherly.
“But he deceived and betrayed Norfolk with a baseness unworthy of a
man of honour.” To this harsh censure I oppose the opinion of Mr Hume,
who will not be suspected of partiality to the regent. “Particularly,”
says he, in a letter to Dr Robertson, written after the publication of
his History of Scotland, “I could {338} almost undertake to convince
you that the earl of Murray’s conduct with the duke of Norfolk was _no
way_ dishonourable.” Stewart’s Life of Robertson: History, i. 158. See
also, in confirmation of this, “Part of a letter from the earl of
Murray to L. B.,” inserted in vol. ii. Append. No. xxxiii.
“His elevation to such unexpected dignity [the reader will observe
that it was _unexpected_] inspired him with new passions, with
haughtiness and reserve: and instead of his natural manner, which was
blunt and open, he affected the arts of dissimulation and refinement.
Fond, towards the end of his life, of flattery, and impatient of
advice, his creatures, by soothing his vanity, led him astray, while
his ancient friends stood at a distance, and predicted his approaching
fall.” Certainly the facts stated by Dr Robertson in the preceding
part of his narrative, do not prepare the mind of his reader for
these charges. The severity of the regent’s virtues had, indeed, been
mentioned, and it had been asserted that his deportment had become
distant and haughty. The authority of Sir James Melvil was referred
to in support of this statement; and I am satisfied that it was upon
his testimony chiefly that the historian proceeded, when he gave the
above account of Murray’s conduct during the latter part of his life. I
submit to the reader the following remarks on the degree of credit due
to the authority of Melvil.
In the first place, there is every reason to think, either that
Melvil’s Memoirs have been unfaithfully published by the editor, or
that the narrative which the author of them has given of affairs, from
the queen’s marriage with Bothwell to the death of the earl of Murray,
is incorrect and unfaithful. I shall not take it upon me to determine
which of these is the most probable supposition, but am of opinion
that either the one or the other must be admitted. The charge which
was brought against queen Mary of participation in the murder of her
husband, with all the proofs produced in support of it, is suppressed,
and studiously kept out of view in the Memoirs. There is not one
word in them respecting the celebrated letters to Bothwell, although
they formed the grand vindication of the regent and his friends. The
same inference may be drawn from the ridiculous account given of the
appearance made by the regent {339} before the commissioners at York,
when he presented the nameless accusation against Mary (Memoirs, 96,
97, Lond. 1683); an account which is completely discredited by the
journals of both parties, and which neither Hume nor Robertson thought
worthy of the slightest regard. It is observable, that Melvil could
not be ignorant of the real transaction, as he was present at York;
and that the design of this, as well as of the subsequent part of his
narrative, is to represent the regent as weakly suffering himself to
be duped and misled by designing and violent counsellors. Mr Laing
has adverted to both of these things as discreditable to the Memoirs.
History, ut supra, i. 118.――I shall produce only one other instance of
the same kind. Speaking of the queen’s marriage with Bothwell, Melvil
says: “I cannot tell how nor by what law he parted with his own wife,
sister to the earl of Huntly.” Mem. 80. Is it credible, that one who
was in the midst of the scene, and acquainted even with the secrets
of state at that time, could be ignorant of that which was proclaimed
to all the world? If it should be alleged that Melvil, writing in his
old age, might have forgotten this glaring fact, (the excuse commonly
made for his inaccuracies,) I am afraid that the apology will detract
as much from the credibility of his Memoirs as the charge which it is
brought to repel.
2. In estimating the degree of regard due to the censures which Melvil
has passed on the regent’s conduct, we must keep in view the political
course which he himself steered. Sir James appears to have been a man
of amiable dispositions, whose mind was cultivated by the study of
letters; but those who have carefully read his Memoirs must, I think,
be convinced that his penetration was not great, and that his politics
were undecided, temporizing, and inconsistent. He was always at court,
and always tampering with those who were out of court. We find him
exposing himself to danger by dissuading his mistress from marrying
Bothwell, and yet countenancing the marriage by his presence; acting
as an agent for those who had imprisoned the queen, and yet intriguing
with those who wished to set her at liberty; carrying a common
message from the king’s lords to the earl of Murray upon his return
out of France, and yet secretly conveying another message tending to
counteract the design of the former; supporting Murray in the regency,
and {340} yet trafficking with those who wished to undermine his
authority. I do not call in question the goodness of his intentions
in all this: I am willing to believe that a desire for the peace of
the country, or attachment to the queen, induced him to go between,
and labour to reconcile, the contending parties. But when parties
are discordant――when their interests, or the objects at which they
shoot, are diametrically opposite, to persevere in such attempts is
preposterous, and cannot fail to foster and increase confusions. Who
believes that the Hamiltons were disposed to join with the king’s
party? or that the latter, when unassured of the assistance of England,
were averse to a junction with the former? Yet Melvil asserts both of
these things. Mem. 85, 86, 90. Who thinks that there was the smallest
feasibility in what he proposed to the regent as “a present remedy
for his preservation?” or believes that Maitland would have consented
to go into France, and Kircaldy to deliver up the castle of Edinburgh?
The regent heard him patiently; he respected the goodness of the
man; but he saw that he was the dupe of Maitland’s artifices, and
he followed his own superior judgment. For rejecting such advices as
this (and not the religious proverbs, and political aphorisms, which
he quoted to him from Solomon, Augustine, Isocrates, Plutarch, and
Theopompus) has Melvil charged him with refusing the counsel of his
oldest and wisest friends. Mem. 102‒104.
3. What were the errors committed by the regent which precipitated
his fall? There are two referred to by Melvil; the imprisonment of
the duke and lord Herries, and the accusation of Maitland and Balfour.
Mem. 100, 101. In vindication of the former step, I have only to
appeal to the narrative which Dr Robertson has given of that affair.
Vol. ii. p. 266‒299. With respect to the latter, Sir James Balfour
was “the most corrupt man of that age,” (ibid. p. 367,) and Maitland
was at that time deeply engaged in intrigues against the regent, ibid.
p. 307. There is not a doubt that both of them were accessory to the
murder of Darnley, (Laing, i. 28, 135, ii. 22); they were arrested and
accused at this time at the instance of Lennox, and in consequence of
the recent confession of one of Bothwell’s servants; and Maitland was
preserved by the queen’s friends assembling in arms for his rescue,
which compelled {341} the regent to adjourn his trial. Ibid. ii. 37.
Appendix, No. 28, p. 298‒9.
4. Who were the unworthy favourites by whose flattery and evil counsel
the regent was led astray? Dr Robertson mentions “captain Crawford,
one of his _creatures_.” This is the same person whom he afterwards
calls “captain Crawford of Jordanhill, a _gallant_ and enterprising
officer,” who distinguished himself so much by the surprise of the
castle of Dumbarton. History, ii. 307, 331, comp. Laing, ii. 297, 298;
and Douglas’s Baronage of Scotland, 429. Morton, Lindsay, Wishart
of Pittarow, Macgill of Rankeillor, Pitcairn abbot of Dunfermline,
Balnaves of Hallhill, and Wood of Tilliedavy, were among the regent’s
counsellors.
5. Who were his old friends who lost his favour? They could be no
other than Balfour, Maitland, Kircaldy, and Melvil himself. Of the two
former I need not say a word. Kircaldy of Grange was a brave man, and
had long been the intimate friend of the regent; but he was already
corrupted by Maitland, and had secretly entered into his schemes for
restoring the queen. Robertson, ii. 307. Of Melvil I have already
spoken; nay, he himself testifies that the regent continued to the
last to listen to his good advices. “The most part of these sentences,
(says he,) drawn out of the Bible, I used to rehearse to him at
several occasions, and _he took better with these at my hands, who he
knew had no by‑end, than if they had proceeded from the most learned
philosopher_. Therefore _at his desire_ I promised to put them in
writing, to give him them to keep in his pocket; but he was slain
before I could meet with him.” Mem. 104. How this is to be reconciled
with other assertions in the Memoirs, I leave others to determine.
It required no great sagacity in the ancient friends of the regent
to “predict his approaching fall,” when repeated attempts had already
been made to assassinate him, and when some of them were privy to the
conspiracy then forming against his life; and it says little for their
ancient friendship, that they “stood at a distance,” and allowed it to
be carried into execution.
There are three honourable testimonies to the excellence of the
regent’s character, which must have weight with all candid persons.
The first is that of the great historian De Thou. He not {342}
only examined the histories which both parties had published of the
transactions in Scotland, which made so much noise through Europe, but
he carefully conversed with the most intelligent and candid Scotsmen,
papists and protestants, whom he had the opportunity of seeing in
France. When that part of his history which embraced these events was
in the press, he applied to his friend Camden for advice, acquainting
him that he was greatly embarrassed, and apprehensive of displeasing
King James, who, he understood, was incensed against Buchanan’s
History. “I do not wish (says he) to incur the charge of imprudence
or malignity from a certain personage who has honoured me with his
letters, and encouraged me to publish the rest of my history with the
same candour, and regard for truth.” Camden, in reply, exhorted him
to study moderation, and told him the story which he had received
from his master, imputing the disturbances in Scotland chiefly to
the ambition of Murray. Durand, Histoire du XVI. Siecle, tom. vii.
contenant la Vie de Monsieur De Thou, p. 226‒231. But notwithstanding
the respect which he entertained for Camden, and the desire which
he felt to please James, De Thou found himself obliged, by a sacred
regard to truth, to reject the above imputation, and to adopt in the
main the narrative of Buchanan. I shall quote, from his answer to
Camden, the character which he draws of Murray. Having mentioned the
accusation brought against him, of ambitiously and wickedly aiming
at the crown, he says: “This is constantly denied by all the credible
Scotsmen with whom I have had opportunity to converse, _not even
excepting those who otherwise were great enemies to Murray on a
religious account_; for they affirm, that, religion apart, HE WAS A
MAN WITHOUT AMBITION, WITHOUT AVARICE, INCAPABLE OF DOING AN INJURY
TO ANY ONE, DISTINGUISHED BY HIS VIRTUE, AFFABILITY, BENEFICENCE, AND
INNOCENCE OF LIFE; and that, had it not been for him, those who tear
his memory since his death would never have attained that authority
which they now enjoy.”――“Res ipsa loquitur: nam demus, quod ab diversa
tradentibus jactatur, Moravium ambitione ardentem scelerate regnum
appetisse, quod tamen constanter negant omnes fide digni Scoti,
quoscunque mihi alloqui contigit, etiam ii quibus alioqui Moravius
{343} ob religionis causam summe invisus erat; nam virum fuisse
aiebant, extra religionis causam, ab omni ambitione, avaritia, et
in quenquam injuria alienum, virtute, comitate, beneficentia, vitæ
innocentia, præstantem; et qui nisi fuisset, eos, qui tantopere
mortuum exagitant, hodie minime rerum potiturus fuisse.” Epistolæ de
Nova Thuani Histor. Editione Paranda. p. 40, in tom. i. Thuani Histor.
et tom. vii. cap. v. p. 5. Buckley, 1733.
A second testimony of a very strong kind in favour of the regent is
that of archbishop Spotswood. He must have conversed with many who
were personally acquainted with Murray; he knew the unfavourable
sentiments which James entertained respecting him, which had been
published in Camden’s Annals; and he had long enjoyed the favour of
that monarch; yet, in his history, he has drawn the character of the
regent in as flattering colours as Buchanan himself has done. The
last testimony to which I shall appeal is the _Vox Populi_, strongly
expressed by the title of _The Good Regent_, which it imposed on him,
and by which his memory was handed down to posterity. Had he, elated
by prosperity, become haughty and reserved, or, intoxicated with
flattery, yielded himself up to unprincipled and avaricious favourites,
the people must soon have felt the effects of the change, and would
never have cherished his name with such enthusiastic gratitude and
unmingled admiration.
Note X, Footnote 218.
_Inscription to the memory of the Regent Murray._――The regent’s
monument is yet entire and in good order. It stands in that part of
St Giles, now called the _Old Church_, (the former aisle having been
taken into the body of the church when it was lately fitted up,) at
the back of the pulpit, on the east side. At the top is the figure
of an eagle, and below it “1570,” the date of the erection of the
monument. In the middle is a brass plate, on which the following
ornaments and inscriptions are engraved: The family arms, with the
motto “Salus per Christum” (Salvation through Christ): On one side of
the arms, a female figure with a cross and Bible, the word “Religio”
above, and below “Pietas sine vindice luget” (Piety {344} mourns
without a defender); on the other side, another female figure, in
a mourning posture, with the head reclining on the hand, the word
“Justicia” above, and below “Jus exarmatum est” (Justice is disarmed.)
Underneath is the following inscription, composed by Buchanan:
23 JANVARII 1569.
JACOBO · STOVARTO · MORAVIÆ · COMITI · SCOTIÆ ·
PROREGI · VIRO · ÆTATIS · SVÆ · LONGE · OPTIMO ·
AB · INIMICIS · OMNIS · MEMORIÆ · DETERRIMIS ·
EX · INSIDIIS · EXTINCTO · CEV · PATRI ·
COMMVNI · PATRIA · MOERENS · POSVIT ·
The verses in which Buchanan celebrated the regent are accessible to
every scholar. The following lines are less known:
JACOBUS STUARTUS.
Moraviæ Comes, Prorex pro Jacobo vi. rem Scoticam feliciter gessit,
puræ Religionis assertor acerrimus. Ab æmulis Limnuchi ex insidiis
glande trajectus, magno omnium desiderio moritur ad d. xxiii. Januarii,
Anno Christi 1570.
Ter tua dicturus cum dicere singula conor,
Ter numeri, et numeros destituere soni.
Nobilitas, animus, probitas, sapientia, virtus,
Consilium, imperium, pectora sancta, fides,
Cuncta mihi simul hæc instant certamine magno:
Ut sibi, sic certant viribus ista meis;
Ipsi adeo Aonides cum vellent dicere, cedunt
Sponte sua numeris, hæc, Buchanane, tuis.
Johannis Jonstoni Heroes, p. 31, 32
Lugduni Batavorum, 1603.
Knox, among others, warned the regent of the designs which his enemies
had formed against his life. “When the Mr of {345} Grahame (says
Bannatyne) come and drew him to Dumbartane, he [Knox] plainlie said to
the regent then, that it was onlie done for a trane be that meanis to
cut him off, as it came to pas; also when he was in Stirveling, being
returned from Dumbartane, he sent me to my ladie the regentis wyfe,
tuo sundrie tymes, and desyrit her to signifie my lord her husband,
that he suld not come to Lynlythgow. So that gif his counsall had bene
followed, he had not died at that tyme. And my ladie the last tyme
sent Mr Jhone Wood, to desyre him to avoid Lynlythgow. But God thought
vs not worthy of sic a rewlare above vs, and also he wald thereby have
the wickitnes of vthers knawin, whilk then was hid; and therefore did
God then tak him fra us. But lat the Hamiltonis, the lard of Grange,
with the rest of that factione, lay their compt and recken thair
advantage and wining since.” Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 428, 429. The
intrepidity of Murray prompted him to despise these prudential
admonition, and defeated the precaution of his friends.
Mr Scott has, by a poetical license, introduced the Reformer as
present at Linlithgow, to grace the regent’s fall.
From the wild border’s humbled side,
In haughty triumph marched he,
While Knox relax’d his bigot pride,
And smiled the traitorous pomp to see.
Ballads and Lyrical Pieces, p. 52. Edin. 1810.
Note Y, Footnote 251.
_Sentiments of Scottish Reformers on the difference between civil and
ecclesiastical authority._――I may subjoin a few facts which ascertain
the opinion of our reformers on this subject.――In common with other
reformed churches, they allowed that civil rulers have a right to
employ their authority for the reformation of religion within their
dominions, especially when, as was universally the case under the
papacy, religious abuses and corruptions affect the state as well
as the church, and are interwoven with the civil constitution and
administration; they allowed them a power of making {346} laws for
the support and advancement of religion; and they held that, where
a reformed church existed, there might be a co‑operation between the
civil and ecclesiastical authorities about certain objects which came
under the cognizance of both, each of them acting within its own line,
and with a view to the proper ends of its institution. But, on the
other hand, they maintained that civil and ecclesiastical authority
were essentially distinct, and they refused that civil rulers had a
supremacy over the church as such, or a right to model her government
and worship, and to assume to themselves the internal management of
her affairs.