attached to these letters, the first question the impartial inquirer
would naturally ask is, whether properly authenticated copies of what Mary
is alleged to have written can still be seen,--whether the _ipsissima
verba_ which she used have been preserved,--and whether an opportunity can
thus be had of judging of the precise shade of meaning of particular
passages, and of the general style and tenor of these strange
compositions. In answer to these inquiries it has to be stated, that the
letters, as taken out of the casket, were exhibited only to a few
noblemen, who acted under Elizabeth; and that nothing but translations of
them are now extant. The Latin edition of Buchanan's "Detection,"
published in 1571, contained only the three first letters translated into
Latin; in the Scottish edition, all the eight letters were translated into
Scotch.[253] The originals were thus left at the mercy of translators;
and, in particular, at the mercy of such a translator as Buchanan, who
cannot be supposed to have had any great desire to be scrupulously
accurate. In 1572, a French edition of the "Detection" was published at
London, to which were subjoined seven French letters and the love-sonnets.
For two hundred years, no one doubted but that these were Mary's original
letters, and they were always referred to as such in any controversies
which took place on the subject. In 1754, however, Mr Walter Goodall,
keeper of the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh, published his "Examination
of the Letters," and showed, in the clearest manner, that these seven
French letters were nothing but re-translations from the Latin and
Scottish translations which had been previously published. This was
certainly an important and interesting discovery, although it scarcely
warranted the conclusion which Goodall thought he was entitled to draw
from it, that no French copy of the letters had, in reality, ever existed
until the Latin and Scottish editions were first fabricated. Robertson and
others have maintained more justly, that, though they acknowledge Goodall
to have proved that the existing French copies of the letters are only
translations from translations, there is, nevertheless, no reason to
believe that these are the French letters which were produced by Murray at
York and Westminster, copies of which they grant have never been given to
the world. That this is the true state of the case, appears by the French
editor's own admission in his Preface. "The letters subjoined to this
work," he says, "were written by the Queen, partly in French and partly in
Scotch, and were afterwards translated altogether into Latin; but having
no knowledge of the Scottish language, I have preferred translating
accurately from the Latin copy, lest, by being over scrupulous about
changing a single syllable, I might frustrate the reader in his desire to
ascertain precisely to whom the fault of the execrable murder, and other
enormities mentioned in them, ought to be ascribed."[254] Thus, both by
the ignorance which this translator evinces, in alleging, contrary to the
assertions which had been made by Murray, that the letters were
originally written partly in French and partly in Scotch, and, by his own
confession, that he preferred translating from the Latin wherever he could
get it, rather than from the Scotch, it is perfectly evident that no such
thing as the original French letters have ever appeared, and that the
French letters which do exist, are not so much to be depended on as even
the Scotch or Latin, which were probably translated directly from the
epistles which Murray produced.
In what condition, then, do we find these wonderful letters about which so
much has been written? We have three in Latin, eight in Scotch, and seven
in French. The French are only re-translations from the Latin and
Scottish; and they, in their turn, are translations from the invisible
French originals. And under whose superintendence were these translations,
into the Scottish and Latin, made? It must have been either under that of
Murray, or of Elizabeth and Cecil. The former, after merely showing the
letters at Westminster, took them back with him to Scotland; but intrusted
the latter with copies.[255] It is not very likely that the Scottish
translation could be made in England; and the three that have been
rendered into Latin, have been commonly attributed to George Buchanan.
Laing, however, labours to show, that this is a mistake, and that the
translation was made by a Dr Wilson, Elizabeth's master of requests. Be
this as it may, in what court of law or equity would such documents as
these be admitted as evidence? The grossest errors have often been made
by translators, even where they were anxious to be as faithful as
possible. Yet we are now called upon to form an opinion of letters, which
exist in languages different from that in which they were originally
written, and which are either translations from translations, or
translations executed by those who had every motive and desire to pervert
the original, and make it appear much worse than it really was. What jury
would for a moment look at such letters? What impartial judge would allow
his mind to be biassed by them, altered and garbled as they must
unquestionably be, even supposing that their originals once existed? It
was to Buchanan's Detection that these letters were always subjoined. At
Westminster, Murray produced a Book of Articles, in five parts, containing
certain presumptions, likelihoods and circumstances, whereby it should
evidently appear, that as Bothwell was the chief murderer of the King, so
was the Queen a deviser and maintainer thereof. "From the explanation
given in Buchanan's History," says Laing, "the book of articles
corresponds, and was undoubtedly the same with the Detection of the doings
of Mary."[256] Buchanan, identifying as he did, his interests with those
of Murray, was from the first one of the most active of the Queen's
prosecutors. The dependence to be placed upon his accuracy and honesty as
a controversialist, has been already pretty clearly established; and the
sort of translations he would make, of any of Mary's writings, may be very
easily conjectured.
Laing, however, claims the merit of a discovery, which, at first sight,
appears somewhat remarkable. It is a copy of one of the eight
Love-letters, in the original French, and found in the State-Paper Office
in a book containing, "Letters upon Scottish Affairs to Queen Elizabeth."
Whether it be in the original French or not, it is certainly different
from the French translation published with the French edition of the
Detection in 1572, and has altogether a greater air of originality about
it. But being confessedly only a copy, it is quite impossible to say
whether it is Mary's French, or that of some one who chose to write French
in her name. It is, besides, remarkable, that, even though it could be
proved to demonstration to be a copy of a genuine letter, it does not
contain a single word which, in the slightest degree, implicates Mary.
Introduced, it is true, as one of a series, all of which, it is
maintained, were addressed to Bothwell, something suspicious might easily
be made out of it. But, as it stands by itself, it must be taken by
itself; and as it bears no address or date, it may just as well be
supposed to have been written to Darnley, or even to a female friend. The
subject spoken of, is the ungrateful conduct of one of Mary's female
attendants; and the advice of the person to whom it is written is asked,
as to what is proper to be done in consequence. To this person, whoever it
was, several natural terms of endearment are also applied, such as, "_Mon
coeur_," and, "_Ma chere vie_;" and these are all the grounds of
suspicion which this "Copy from the State-Paper Office," contains.[257]
Having thus shown the extreme uncertainty which must attend any argument
against Mary, founded on any minute or literal examination of these
Letters, a very few objections further may be stated to them, upon
evidences which they themselves afford.
Although it is impossible to form any opinion of the _words_ which Mary
may have used in these letters, some conclusions may be drawn from the
_sentiments_ which the translators of course pretend not to have altered.
These are, in many respects, directly contradictory of the character which
history proves her to have possessed. Whatever follies Mary may have
committed--whatever weaknesses she may have fallen into--it cannot be
denied, even by her worst enemies, that she was a woman of a proud
spirit, and too much accustomed to admiration and flattery, to consider
her esteem a gift of little value. Yet, through all these writings, she is
made to evince a degree of ardour and forwardness of affection for
Bothwell, at once against every notion of female delicacy, and all
probability. She is continually made to express fears that he does not
return her love with an equal warmth,--that he loves his wife, the Lady
Jane Gordon, better than he does her,--and that he is not so zealous in
bringing about their mutual purposes as she could wish. If Bothwell had
ever carried on these criminal intrigues with Mary, one of his first
objects would have been to remove from her mind all suspicion that he was
not in truth devotedly attached to her. Whether he was successful in
deceiving her or not, is it likely that Mary Queen of Scots, whose hand
had been sought by all the first Princes in Christendom, would have
condescended to servility, meanness, and abject cringing in her advances
to him? If the letters were forged, Murray would naturally wish to put in
as strong a point of view as possible, Mary's anxiety to urge Bothwell on
to all the crimes which he perpetrated. But if letters had been really
written by her, many compunctious visitings of conscience would surely be
apparent in them,--many a fear would be expressed,--many a symptom would
be discovered of the reluctance with which she yielded to the overwhelming
strength of Bothwell's passion and entreaties. Yet in these letters
nothing of the kind is to be found. Passages occur continually, in which,
far from there being any of the conscious confusion and hesitation which
would necessarily have marked the style of one who was, for the first
time, deviating so far from the paths of virtue, nothing is to be
discovered but the hardened vice and shameless effrontery of a confirmed
and _masculine villain_.
Another peculiarity is to be observed in the first and longest of these
letters. In describing a conversation which she had with Darnley at
Glasgow, Mary is made to give very minutely all his defence of his own
conduct, in reply to some charges which she brought against him; and to
make it evident that he was in the right, and that she herself, even when
instigating Bothwell to his murder, must have felt him to be so. "This is
another proof of forgery," says Whittaker; "that the Queen should repeat
all the King's defences of himself, and should not repeat her replies to
them, is contrary to every principle of the human heart. Our natural
fondness for ourselves puts us constantly upon a conduct the very reverse
of all this. We shorten the defences, we lengthen the replies; or, if we
are fair enough to give the full substance of the former, we are always
partial enough to do the same by the latter."[258] The forger, however, in
his anxiety to throw as much odium as possible upon Mary, was willing to
diminish some of even Bothwell's responsibility, and disposed to vindicate
Darnley entirely; but he took a clumsy method of effecting his purpose.
Notwithstanding these considerations, Robertson was of opinion, as usual,
that the style and sentiments of these letters tended on the whole to
prove that they were genuine. His principal reason for entertaining this
belief is, that "there are only imperfect hints, obscure intimations, and
dark expressions in the letters, which, however convincing evidence they
might furnish if found in real letters, bear no resemblance to that glare
and superfluity of evidence which forgeries commonly contain." "Had Mary's
enemies been so base as to have recourse to forgery, is it not natural to
think, that they would have produced something more explicit and
decisive?"--"Mary's letters, especially the first, are filled with a
multiplicity of circumstances extremely natural in a real correspondence,
but altogether foreign to the purpose of the Queen's enemies, and which it
would have been perfect folly to have inserted, if they had been
altogether imaginary and without foundation." There is some plausibility
in this view of the subject; and Laing and others have dwelt upon it at
great length, and with much confidence. But it is divested of all force as
soon as we come to consider the manner in which these letters would be
prepared, if they were in truth forgeries. The long time which elapsed
after Mary's imprisonment in Loch-Leven, before any allusion was made to
them, and the still longer time they were allowed to lie dormant after
their existence had been first asserted, has been already described. Upon
the hypothesis that they were fabrications, it was during this period that
Murray and his associates were engaged in preparing them; and they would
probably reason on the following grounds, as to what ought to be the
nature of their contents. The point they wished to establish was, "that as
the Earl of Bothwell was chief executor of the horrible and unworthy
murder; so was the Queen of the fore-knowledge, counsel, device,
persuader and commander of the said murder to be done." They knew that, in
so far as appearances went, nothing made this latter part of the assertion
in the least probable, except the circumstance of Mary having been married
to Bothwell, which they themselves had declared was a forced marriage, and
which Mary had proved to be so by taking the first opportunity which
occurred to desert him. It had become necessary, however, even at the
expense of their own consistency to accuse the Queen of having acted in
concert with Bothwell throughout. No evidence whatever would establish
this fact, (the more especially as all the confessions and depositions of
Bothwell's accomplices tended to exculpate her), except writings under her
own hand acknowledging her guilt. In order to make it appear possible that
Mary had committed an account of that guilt to paper, the idea of letters
to a confidential friend naturally suggested itself; and to none could
these letters with so much propriety be addressed as to Bothwell himself;
because, having subsequently married him, it was to be shown that it was
her inordinate affection for him that induced her to wish for the death of
Darnley. The train being thus laid, the next question was, in what precise
manner Mary was to be made to address Bothwell. The forgers would at once
perceive, that it would not do to make her speak straight out, and in
plain terms command the perpetration of the murder, and arrange all the
preliminary steps for it. This would have been to represent Mary as at
once a Messalina and a Medea,--which even Murray felt would have been
going too far. The letters were to show her guilt, but to show it in such
a manner as she herself might be naturally supposed to have exhibited it,
had she actually written them;--and nothing therefore was to be introduced
but those "imperfect hints, obscure intimations, and dark expressions,"
which, without the "glare and superfluity" of common forgeries, furnished
convincing evidence when found in letters alleged to be real. Murray,
Morton, Maitland, and Buchanan, were no ordinary forgers; and if they were
not able to conceive and express the whole so artfully, that it would cost
some difficulty to detect them, then, forgery in every instance must be
hopeless and manifest.
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, and make 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 matter of 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 writings
are 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
haec satis divisa temporibus._"[264] It might be shown, _second_, that
these 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 and _subscribed_ with her own hand;"--but
in the Act of Parliament passed a few weeks afterwards, they are only
spoken of as "_written wholly_ with 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 jete mainte larme,
Premier qu'il fust de ce corps possesseur,
_Du quel alors il n'avoit pas le coeur_;"
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 criminal attachment 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 June
1567,--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, and _that_ under
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 external
evidence, 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.
ADDENDUM.
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.
_Vide_ Bishop 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 his _Martyre 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 no _restoration_ of 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 "just _without_ the 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's _History_, Book XVIII. may be compared with his
_Detection_ in Anderson, vol. i. p. 22 and 72.
[44] Buchanan's _History_, 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] _Vide_ these 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 the _godly_ Earl 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 the _force_ to
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. _Vide_ Laboureur 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 a _square
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 a DUNGEON, 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 Caesar, 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.
[186] See the whole of this letter in Whittaker, vol. iv. p. 399. Camden
translated it into Latin, and introduced it into his History; but he
published only an abridged edition of it, which Dr Stuart has paraphrased
and abridged still further; and Mademoiselle de Keralio has translated Dr
Stuart's paraphrased abridgment into French, supposing it to have been the
original letter. Stuart, vol. ii. p. 164.--Keralio, Histoire d'Elisabethe,
vol. v. p. 349.
[187] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 395.
[188] They were hanged on two successive days, seven on each day; and the
first seven, among whom were Ballard, Babington, and Savage, were cut down
before they were dead, embowelled, and then quartered.--_Stranguage_, _p._
177.
[189] Stranguage, p. 176.--Chalmers, vol. i. p. 427 et seq.
[190] In the first series of Ellis's Collection of "Original Letters
illustrative of English History," there is given a fac simile of the plan,
in Lord Burleigh's hand, for the arrangement to be observed at the trial
of the Queen of Scots. As it is interesting, and brings the whole scene
more vividly before us, the following explanatory copy of it will be
perused with interest.
[Illustration: The upper end of the Gret Chambre at Fordynghay Cast.]
_Below, in another hand, apparently in answer to Lord Burleigh's
direction, is the following_:
"This will be most convenientlye in the greatt Chamber; the lengthe
whereof is in all xxiij. yerds with the windowe: whereof there may be fr.
the neither part beneth the barre viij. yerds: and the rest for the upper
parte. The breadeth of the chamber is vij. yerds.
"There is another chambre for the Lords to dyne in, the lengthe is xiiij.
yerds; the breadeth, vij. yerdes; and the deppeth iij. yerdes dim."
[191] As an example of some of the mistakes which the fabricators of these
letters committed, it may be mentioned, that in one of them, dated the
27th of July 1586, Mary is made to say,--"I am not yet brought so low but
that I am able to handle my cross-bow for killing a deer, and to gallop
after the hounds on horseback, as this afternoon I intend to do, within
the limits of this park, and could otherwhere if it were permitted." Yet
on the 3d of June previous, Sir Amias Paulet informed Walsingham--"The
Scottish Queen is getting a little strength, and has been out in her
coach, and is sometimes carried in a chair to one of the adjoining ponds
to see the diversion of duck-hunting; but she is not able to walk without
support on each side." See Chalmers, vol. i. p. 426.
[192] Camden, p. 519, et seq.--Stranguage, p. 192, et seq.--Robertson,
Book VII.--Stuart, vol. ii. p. 268, et seq.
[193] It deserves notice, that no particulars of the trial at Fotheringay
have been recorded, either by Mary herself, or any of her friends, but are
all derived from the narrative of two of Elizabeth's notaries. If Mary's
triumph was so decided, even by their account, it may easily be conceived
that it would have appeared still more complete, had it been described by
less partial writers.
[194] Camden, p. 525, et seq.
[195] Murdin, p. 569.
[196] Camden.
[197] Jebb, vol. ii. p. 91.
[198] Tytler, vol. ii. p. 319, et seq., and p. 403.--Chalmers, vol. i. p.
447.--Tytler gives a strong and just exposition of the shameful nature of
the Queen's correspondence with Paulet. The reader cannot fail to peruse
the following passage with interest:
"The letters written by Elizabeth to Sir Amias Paulet, Queen Mary's keeper
in her prison at Fotheringay Castle, disclose to us the true sentiments of
her heart, and her steady purpose to have Mary privately assassinated.
Paulet, a rude but an honest man, had behaved with great insolence and
harshness to Queen Mary, and treated her with the utmost disrespect. He
approached her person without any ceremony, and usually came covered into
her presence, of which she had complained to Queen Elizabeth. He was
therefore thought a fit person for executing the above purpose. The
following letter from Elizabeth displays a strong picture of her artifice
and flattery, in order to raise his expectations to the highest pitch.
'TO MY LOVING AMIAS.
'_Amias, my most faithful and careful servant_, God reward thee treblefold
for the most troublesome charge so well discharged. If you knew, _my
Amias_, how kindly, beside most dutifully, my grateful heart accepts and
praiseth your spotless endeavours and faithful actions, performed in so
dangerous and crafty a charge, it would ease your travail, and rejoice
your heart; in which I charge you to carry this most instant thought, that
I cannot balance in any weight of my judgment the value that I prize you
at, and suppose no treasure can countervail such a faith. And you shall
condemn me in that fault that yet I never committed, if I reward not such
desert; yea let me lack when I most need it, if I acknowledge not such a
merit, _non omnibus datum_.'[*]
Having thus buoyed up his hopes and wishes, Walsingham, in his letters to
Paulet and Drury, mentions the proposal in plain words to them. 'We find,
by a speech lately made by her Majesty, that she doth note in you both a
lack of that care and zeal for her service, that she looketh for at your
hands, in that you have not in all this time (of yourselves, without any
other provocation) found out some way to shorten the life of the Scots
Queen, considering the great peril she is hourly subject to, so long as
the said Queen shall live.'--In a Post-script: 'I pray you, let both this
and the enclosed be committed to the fire; as your answer shall be, after
it has been communicated to her Majesty, for her satisfaction.' In a
subsequent letter: 'I pray you let me know what you have done with my
letters, because they are not fit to be kept, that I may satisfy her
Majesty therein, who might otherwise take offence thereat.'
What a cruel snare is here laid for this faithful servant! He is tempted
to commit a murder, and at the same time has orders from his Sovereign to
destroy the warrant for doing it. He was too wise and too honourable to do
either the one or the other. Had he fallen into the snare, we may guess,
from the fate of Davidson, what would have been his. Paulet, in return,
thus writes to Walsingham:--'Your letters of yesterday coming to my hand
this day, I would not fail, according to your directions, to return my
answer with all possible speed; which I shall deliver unto you with great
grief and bitterness of mind, in that I am so unhappy, as living to see
this unhappy day, in which I am required, by direction of my most gracious
Sovereign, to do an act which God and the law forbiddeth. My goods and
life are at her Majesty's disposition, and I am ready to lose them the
next morrow if it shall please her. But God forbid I should make so foul a
shipwreck of my conscience, or leave so great a blot to my poor posterity,
as shed blood without law or warrant."
[*] What a picture have we here, of the heroine of England! Wooing a
faithful servant to commit a clandestine murder, which she herself
durst not avow! The portrait of King John, in the same predicament,
practising with Hubert to murder his nephew, then under his charge,
shows how intimately the great Poet was acquainted with nature.
O my gentle Hubert,
We owe thee much! Within this wall of flesh,
There is a soul, counts thee her creditor,
And with advantage means to pay thy love,
And, my good friend, thy voluntary oath
Lives in this bosom dearly cherished.
[199] Mackenzie's Lives of the Scottish Writers, vol. iii. p.
336.--Robertson, vol. ii. p. 194.--Chalmers, vol. i. p. 449.
[200] La Mort de la Royne d'Ecosse in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 611.
[201] Jebb, vol. ii. p. 622. et seq.
[202] "Mary's testament and letters," says Ritson the antiquarian, "which
I have seen, blotted with her tears in the Scotch College, Paris, will
remain perpetual monuments of singular abilities, tenderness, and
affection,--of a head and heart of which no other Queen in the world was
probably ever possessed."
[203] Jebb, vol. ii. p. 628, et seq.
[204] History of Fotheringay, p. 79.
[205] Among these attendants were her physician Bourgoine, who afterwards
wrote a long and circumstantial narrative of her death, and Jane Kennedy,
formerly mentioned on the occasion of Mary's escape from Loch-Leven.
[206] Narratio Supplicii Mortis Mariae Stuart in Jebb, vol. ii. p.
163.--La Mort de la Royne d'Ecosse in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 636 and
639.--Camden, p. 535.
[207] Jebb, vol. ii. p. 640, et seq.
[208] See Mezeray, Histoire de France, tome iii.
[209] "We may say of Mary, I believe, with strict propriety," observes
Whittaker, "what has been said of one of her Royal predecessors,--'the
gracious Duncan,' that she
"Had borne her faculties so meek, had been
So clear in her great office, that her virtues,
Will plead, like angels, trumpet-tongued, against
_The deep damnation of her taking off_."
[210] "Oraison Funebre" in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 671.
[211] Anderson, vol. ii. p. 92.
[212] Keith, p. 79.
[213] Anderson, vol. i. p. 117.--Keith, p. 379.
[214] Melville, p. 175. et seq.
[215] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 90.
[216] Keith, p. 406.
[217] Anderson, vol. i. p. 139.
[218] Keith, p. 417.
[219] Haynes, p. 454.--Stuart, vol. i. p. 361.
[220] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 66.
[221] Keith, p. 467.--Anderson, vol. ii. p. 173.
[222] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 140.
[223] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 235.
[224] Ibid. 256.
[225] Tytler, vol. i. p. 144.
[226] There is preserved at Hamilton Palace, a small silver box, said to
be the very casket which once contained the Letters. Laing, who appears to
believe in the genuineness of this relic somewhat too hastily, mentions,
that "the casket was purchased from a Papist by the Marchioness of Douglas
(a daughter of the Huntly family) about the period of the Restoration.
After her death, her plate was sold to a goldsmith, from whom her
daughter-in-law Anne, heiress and Dutchess of Hamilton, repurchased the
casket."
"For the following accurate and satisfactory account of the casket," adds
Mr Laing, "I am indebted to Mr Alexander Young, W. S., to whom I
transmitted the description of it given in Morton's receipt, and in the
Memorandum prefixed to the Letters in Buchanan's 'Detection.'"
"'The silver box is carefully preserved in the Charter-room at Hamilton
Palace, and answers exactly the description you have given of it, both in
size and general appearance. I examined the outside very minutely. On the
first glance I was led to state, that it had none of those ornaments to
which you allude, and, in particular, that it wanted the crowns, with the
Italic letter _F_. Instead of these, I found on one of the sides the arms
of the house of Hamilton, which seemed to have been engraved on a
compartment, which had previously contained some other ornament. On the
top of the lock, which is of curious workmanship, there is a large
embossed crown with _fleurs de lis_, but without any letters. Upon the
bottom, however, of the casket, there are two other small ornaments--one
near each end, which, at first sight, I thought resembled our
silver-smiths' marks; but, on closer inspection, I found they consisted
each of a royal crown above a _fleur de lis_, surmounting the Italic
letter _F_.'"--Laing, vol. ii. p. 235.
Upon this description of the box, it may be remarked, that it does _not_
exactly agree with the account given of it by Buchanan; for it would
appear, that in the casket preserved at Hamilton, there are only two
Italic _F's_; while Buchanan describes it as "a small gilt coffer, not
fully a foot long, being _garnished in sundry places_ with the Roman
letter F, under a king's crown," an expression he would not have used, had
there been only two of these letters. Besides, there seems to have been a
king's crown above each; but on the coffer at Hamilton, there is only one
crown on the top of the lock, and not above the letter F. Antiquarians,
however, have investigated subjects of less curiosity, and have been
willing to believe upon far more slender data.
[227] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 87.
[228] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 140.
[229] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 235; and p. 257.
[230] The authentic "Warrant" and "Consent," has been already described,
_supra_, vol. ii. p. 95, and may be seen at length in Anderson, vol. i. p.
87.
[231] Laing, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 356.
[232] See in further corroboration of the facts stated above, a Letter of
Archibald Douglas to the Queen of Scots, in Robertson's Appendix, or in
Laing, vol. ii. p. 363.
[233] "Nec ullam hac in causa reginae accusationem intervenire."--See the
King of Denmark's Letter in Laing, vol. ii. p. 328.
[234] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 382.
[235] Keith, Appendix, p. 141.
[236] Jebb, vol. ii. p. 227.--Keith, Appendix, p. 143.
[237] See the New Monthly Magazine, No. LIV. p. 521.
[238] Lesley's "Defence" in Anderson, vol. i. p. 40.
[239] Miss Benger, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 494.
[240] Buchanan, book xix.--Stuart, vol. i. p. 460.
[241] Robertson, Appendix to vol. i. No. xxii.
[242] Anderson, vol. iv. Part I. p. 120 and 125.
[243] Keith, Appendix, p. 145.
[244] Jebb, vol. ii. p. 671.
[245] Anderson, vol. ii. p. 185.
[246] Anderson, ibid. p. 187.--Laing, vol. ii. p. 296.
[247] Laing, Appendix p. 323.
[248] Laing, vol. ii. p. 298.
[249] Ibid. p. 300.
[250] Tytler, vol. i. p. 20.
[251] It is unnecessary to enter into any discussion regarding the second
Confession of Paris, which has been so satisfactorily proved to be
spurious, by Tytler, Whittaker, and Chalmers, and on which Robertson
acknowledges "no stress is to be laid," on account of the "improbable
circumstances" it contains. See Tytler, vol. i. p. 286.--Whittaker, vol.
ii. p. 305.--Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 50.--Robertson, vol. iii. p. 20.
[252] Robertson, vol. iii. p. 21.
[253] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 371 and 375.--Robertson, vol. iii. p. 28.
[254] The French edition of the Detection, p. 2.--Goodall, vol. i. p. 103.
[255] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 235.
[256] Laing, vol. i. p. 250.
[257] See the Letter in Laing, vol. ii. p. 202; and an unsuccessful
attempt to give a criminal interpretation to it, in vol. i. p. 311. It is
quite unnecessary to allude here to several other flimsy forgeries which,
at a later period, have been attempted to be palmed upon the world as
genuine letters of Mary. In 1726, a book was published, entitled, "The
genuine Letters of Mary Queen of Scots, to James Earl of Bothwell, found
in his Secretary's Closet after his Decease, and now in the Possession of
a Gentleman at Oxford. Translated from the French by Edward Simmons, late
of Christ-Church College, Oxford." These had only to be read, to be seen
to be fabrications. Yet so late as the year 1824, a compilation was
published by Dr Hugh Campbell, containing, among other things, eleven
letters, which the Doctor thought were original love-letters of the Queen
to Bothwell, although, with a very trifling variation, they were the same
as those published in 1726; only, not being described as translations, and
being written in comparatively modern English, which Mary never could
write, they bear still more evidently the stamp of forgery. This is put
beyond a doubt, by a short Examination of them, published by Murray,
London, 1825, and entitled, "A Detection of the Love-Letters, lately
attributed, in Hugh Campbell's Work, to Mary Queen of Scots; wherein his
Plagiarisms are proved, and his fictions fixed."
[258] Whittaker, vol. ii. p. 79.
[259] Goodall, vol. i. p. 79--Laing, vol. i. p. 209.
[260] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 342.
[261] Jebb, vol. ii. 244.
[262] Camden, p. 143.--Tytler, vol. i. p. 101.
[263] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 31.
[264] It is proper to state, that Robertson has considered this argument
at some length; and though he has not overturned, he has certainly
invalidated the strength of the evidence adduced by Goodall in support of
it.--Goodall, vol. i. p. 118.--Whittaker, vol. i. p. 383.--Chalmers, vol.
ii. p. 375.--Laing, vol. i. p. 315.
[265] Whittaker, vol. i. p. 332.
[266] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 64 & 67.
[267] Whittaker, vol. i. p. 408.
[268] Goodall, vol. ii. p. 51.
[269] Regarding these sonnets, the curious reader may consult Whittaker,
vol. iii. p. 55.--Stuart, vol. i. p. 395.--Jebb, vol. ii. p. 481--and
Laing, vol. i. p. 230. 347. 349. and 368. For remarks on the
marriage-contracts, see Goodall, vol. ii. p. 54 & 56, and vol. i. p.
126.--Whittaker, vol. i, p. 392, and Stuart, vol, i. p. 397.