The queen was at St Andrews, inquiring into a conspiracy of which the
Duke of Chatelherault and the Earl of Bothwell had been accused by the
Duke’s son, the Earl of Arran. In the midst of the affair, Arran proved
to be ‘phrenetick.’ On the 4th of May, ‘my Lords Arran, Bothwell, and
the Commendator of Kilwinning came fra St Andrews to the burgh of
Edinburgh in this manner; that is to say, my Lord Arran was convoyit in
the queen’s grace’s _coach_, because of the phrenesy aforesaid, and the
Earl of Bothwell and my Lord Commendator of Kilwinning rade, convoyit
with twenty-four horsemen, whereof was principal Captain Stewart,
captain of the queen’s guard.’--_D. O._
[Sidenote: 1562.]
This is not the first notice of a travelling vehicle that occurs in
our national domestic history. Several payments in connection with a
chariot belonging to the late Queen Mary de Guise, so early as 1538,
occur in the lord-treasurer’s books.[19] It is not, however, likely
that either the chariot of the one queen or the coach of the other was
a wheeled vehicle, as, if we may trust to an authority about to be
quoted, such a convenience was as yet unknown even in England.
‘In the year 1564, Guilliam Boonen, a Dutchman, became the queen’s
coachman, and was the first that brought the use of coaches into
England. And after a while, divers great ladies, with as great jealousy
of the queen’s displeasure, made them coaches, and rid in them up and
down the countries, to the great admiration of all the beholders;
but then, by little and little, they grew usual among the nobility
and others of sort, and within twenty years became a great trade of
coachmaking.
‘And about that time began long waggons to come in use, such as now
come to London from Canterbury, Norwich, Ipswich, Gloucester, &c., with
passengers and commodities. Lastly, even at this time (1605) began the
ordinary use of carouches.’--_Howes’s Chronicle._
The author of the _Memorie of the Somervilles_--who, however, lived in
the reign of Charles II., and probably wrote from tradition only--says
that the Regent Morton used a coach, which was the _second_ introduced
into Scotland, the _first_ being one which Alexander Lord Seaton
brought from France, when Queen Mary returned from that country. It
is to be remarked that the Lord Seaton of that day was George, not
Alexander; and it is evident that Mary did not use a coach on her
landing, or at her ceremonial entry into Edinburgh.
* * * * *
To turn for a moment to one of the remoter and wilder parts of the
country--John Mackenzie of Kintail ‘was a great courtier with Queen
Mary. He feued much of the lands of Brae Ross. When the queen sent her
servants to know the condition of the gentry of Ross, they came to his
house of Killin; but before their coming he had gotten intelligence
that it was to find out the condition of the gentry of Ross that they
were coming; whilk made him cause his servants to put ane great fire of
fresh arn [alder] wood when they came, to make a great reek; also he
caused kill a great bull in their presence; whilk was put altogether
into ane kettle to their supper. When the supper came, there were a
half-dozen great dogs present, to sup the broth of the bull, whilk put
all the house through-other with their tulyie. When they ended the
supper, ilk ane lay where they were. The gentlemen thought they had
gotten purgatory on earth, and came away as soon as it was day; but
when they came to the houses of Balnagowan, and Foulis, and Milton,
they were feasted like princes. [Sidenote: 1562.]
‘When they went back to the queen, she asked who were the ablest men
they saw in Ross. They answered: “They were all able men, except that
man that was her majesty’s great courtier, Mackenzie--that he did both
eat and lie with his dogs.” “Truly,” said the queen, “it were a pity of
his poverty--he is the best man of them all.” Then the queen did call
for all the gentry of Ross to take their land in feu, when Mackenzie
got the cheap feu, and more for his thousand merks than any of the rest
got for five.’[20]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: SEP. 23.]
This day commenced a famous disputation between John Knox and Quintin
Kennedy, abbot of Crossraguel, concerning the doctrines of popery.
Kennedy was uncle to the Earl of Cassillis, a young Protestant
noble, and the greatest man in the west of Scotland. The birth and
ecclesiastical rank of the abbot made him an important person in his
province, and he possessed both zeal for the ancient religion and
talents to set it in its fairest light. Early in September, John Knox,
coming into Ayrshire for certain objects connected with the Protestant
cause, found that Abbot Kennedy had set forth, in the church of
Kirkoswald, articles in support of the Catholic faith, which he was
willing to defend. The fiery reformer immediately resolved to take
up the challenge; and after a tedious correspondence between the two
regarding the place, time, and number to be present, they met in the
house of the provost of the collegiate church of Maybole, under the
sanction of the Earl of Cassillis, and with forty persons on each side.
The conference commenced at eight in the morning, being opened by John
Knox with a prayer, which Kennedy admitted to be ‘weel said.’
[Sidenote: 1562.]
We can imagine the forty supporters of Kennedy full of joyful
anticipation as to the defeat which their champion was to give the
unpolite heretic Knox, and the company of the latter not less hopeful
regarding the triumph which he was to achieve over the luxurious abbot.
Acts of parliament had done their best to put down the old church,
and still it had some obstinate adherents; but now comes the valiant
reformer, with pure argument from Scripture, to sweep one of these
recusants off the face of the earth, and leave the rest without an
excuse for their obstinacy. Now are the mass, purgatory, worship of
saints, and other popish doctrines, to be finally put down. If such
were the anticipations, they were doomed to a sad disappointment. The
disputation proved to be the very type of all similar wranglings which
have since taken place between the two parties.
It will scarcely be believed, but there is only too little reason
why it should not, that three days were consumed by these redoubted
controversialists in debating one question. The warrant of the abbot
for considering the mass as a sacrifice was the priesthood and oblation
of Melchizedek. ‘The Psalmist,’ said he, ‘and als the apostle St Paul
affirms our Saviour to be ane priest for ever according to the order
of Melchizedek, wha made oblation and sacrifice of bread and wine unto
God, as the Scripture plainly teacheth us.... Read all the evangel wha
pleases, he sall find in no place of the evangel where our Saviour
uses the priesthood of Melchizedek, declaring himself to be ane priest
after the order of Melchizedek, but in the Latter Supper, where he made
oblation of his precious body and blude under the form of bread and
wine prefigurate by the oblation of Melchizedek: then are we compelled
to affirm that our Saviour made oblation of his body and blude in the
Latter Supper, or else he was not ane priest according to the order of
Melchizedek, which is express against the Scripture.’
To this Knox answered that Scripture gives no warrant for supposing
that Melchizedek offered bread and wine unto Abraham, and therefore
the abbot’s warrant fails. The abbot called on him to prove that
Melchizedek did not do so. Knox protested that he was not bound to
prove a negative. ‘For what, then,’ says Kennedy, ‘did Melchizedek
bring out the bread and wine?’ Knox said, that though he was not bound
to answer this question, yet he believed the bread and wine were
brought out to refresh Abraham and his men. In barren wranglings on
this point were nearly the whole three days spent; and, for anything we
can see, the disputation might have been still further protracted, but
for an opportune circumstance. Strange to say--looking at what Maybole
now is--it broke down under the burden of eighty strangers in three
days! They had to disperse for lack of provisions.[21]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1562.