Life of Mary Queen of Scots, Volume 1 (of 2)

70

Randolph in Keith, p. 230.

71

Little did Mary then dream of Fotheringay.

72

In Buchanan’s Cameleon, a severe satire, written at the request of his patron the Earl of Murray, when that nobleman quarrelled with Secretary Maitland, we have the following ridiculous account of the secret motives which led to this disastrous northern expedition. “The Queen, by advice of her uncles, devised to destroy the Earl of Murray, thinking him to be a great bridle to refrain her appetites, and impediment to live at liberty of her pleasure; not that he ever used any violence anent her, but that his honesty was so great that she was ashamed to attempt any thing indecent in his presence. She, then, being deliberate to destroy him, by the Earl of Huntly, went to the north and he in her company; and howbeit the treason was opened plainly, and John Gordon lying not far off the town (Aberdeen) with a great power, and the Earl of Murray expressly lodged in a house separate from all other habitation, and his death by divers ways sought, – this Cameleon (Maitland) whether for simpleness or for lack of foresight, or for boldness of courage, I refer to every man’s conscience that doth know him, he alone could see no treason, could fear no danger, and could never believe that the Earl of Huntly would take on hand such an enterprise.” This statement, while it gives some notion of the dependence to be placed on Buchanan’s accuracy when influenced by party feelings, betrays, at the same time, the important secret, that Maitland saw and felt the injustice of Huntly’s persecution. – Buchanan’s Cameleon, p. 9.

73

Brantome in Jebb, p. 495, & seq. – Chalmers, vol. i. p. 101. – Freebairn, p. 25 – and Histoire de Marie Stuart, tom. i. p. 210. Knox, as usual, gives a highly indecorous and malicious account of this affair, his drift being to make his readers believe (though he does not to venture to say so in direct terms) that Mary had first tempted, and then betrayed Chatelard; and that she was anxious to have him despatched secretly, that he might not stain her honour by a public confession. If such were really the fact, it is odd that Chatelard should have been brought to a scaffold, which was surrounded by thousands, and that, even according to Knox himself, he said nothing relating to Mary but what is narrated in the text. – Vide Knox’s History, p. 325.

74

Chalmers, in his account of the opening of this Parliament, seems to have committed an error. He says, (vol. i. p. 105.) “The Queen came to Parliament in her robes and was crowned.” That any coronation took place, is not at all likely. Chalmers surely had forgotten that Mary was crowned at Stirling by Cardinal Beaton just twenty years before. There was no reason why the ceremony should have been repeated. Chalmers’ mistake is probably founded upon the following passage, in a letter of Randolph’s, quoted by Keith, p. 239 – “The Parliament began 26th May, on which day the Queen came to it in her robes and crowned.” The word was is an interpolation of Chalmers. But as Randolph goes on immediately to say, – “The Duke carried the crown, Argyle the sceptre, &c.,” Chalmers probably thought Mary could not at the same time wear the crown. But the crown of state, carried upon state occasions, was no doubt different from the crown made expressly to be worn by the reigning Queen. Buchanan puts the matter beyond a doubt, for he says explicitly; – “The Queen, with the crown on her head, and in her royal robes, went in great pomp to the Parliament House – a new sight to many.” Buchanan’s History, Book xvii.

75

Knox’s History of the Reformation, p. 332 et seq.

76

Knox, p. 345.

77

Keith, p. 206 and 249. – Chalmers, vol. i. p. 65, et seq. – Whittaker, vol. iii, p. 334. – Miss Benger, vol. ii, p. 145, et seq.

78

These violars were all Scotchmen, and two of them were of the name of Dow, – “a name,” says Chalmers, “consecrated to music.” Having never heard of this consecration before, we think it not unlikely that Chalmers has mistaken Dow for Gow. Vide Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 72.

79

Jebb, vol. ii. p. 202. Chalmers, vol. i. p. 95, and vol. ii. p. 156. Tytler’s Enquiry, vol. ii. p. 4 et seq.; Histoire de Marie Stuart, p. 218; and Laing, vol. i. p. 10.

80

Melville’s Memoirs, p. 110-30. The French historian Castelnau, speaks in exactly similar terms. When sent by the King of France as ambassador to Mary, “I found that princess,” he says, “in the flower of her age, esteemed and adored by her subjects, and sought after by all neighbouring states, in so much that there was no great fortune or alliance that she might not have aspired to, not only because she was the relation and successor of the Queen of England, but because she was endowed with more graces and perfection of beauty than any other princess of her time.” – Castelnau in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 460.

81

Keith, p. 269. – Chalmers, vol. i. p. 123.

82

Chalmers says (vol. i. p. 120), that the “Countess of Lennox sent Murray a diamond,” which, though true, is not supported by the authority he quotes – Randolph in Keith, who says (p. 259) – “Lennox giveth to the Queen and most of the council jewels; but none to Murray.” The authority Chalmers ought to have quoted is Melville (p. 127), who, on his return from his embassy to England, brought some presents with him from Lady Lennox, who was then not aware of the precise state of parties in Scotland. “My Lady Lennox,” says Melville, “sent also tokens: to the Queen a ring with a fair diamont; ane emerald to my Lord her husband, who was yet in Scotland; a diamont to my Lord of Murray; ane orloge or montre (watch) set with diamonts and rubies, to the secretary Lethington; a ring with a ruby to my brother Sir Robert; for she was still in good hope that her son, my Lord Darnley, should come better speed than the Earl of Leicester, anent the marriage with the Queen. She was a very wise and discreet matron, and had many favourers in England for the time.”

83

In confirmation of the fact, that he was “well-instructed,” it may be mentioned, that, before he was twelve years old, he wrote a tale, called “Utopia Nova.” Some ballads are also ascribed to him; and Bishop Montague, in his Preface to the Works of James VI., mentions, that he translated Valerius Maximus into English. His only literary effort, which seems to have been preserved, is a letter he wrote when about nine years old from Temple Newsome, his father’s principal seat in Yorkshire, to his cousin Mary Tudor, Queen of England. It deserves insertion as a curiosity:

“Like as the monuments of ancient authors, most triumphant, most victorious, and most gracious Princess, declare how that a certain excellent musician, Timotheus Musicus, was wont, with his sweet-proportioned and melodious harmony, to inflame Alexander the Great, Conqueror and King of Macedonia, to civil wars, with a most fervent desire, even so, I, remembering with myself oftentimes how that (over and besides such manifold benefits as your Highness heretofore hath bestowed on me) it hath pleased your most excellent Majesty lately to accept a little plot of my simple penning, which I termed Utopia Nova; for the which, it being base, vile, and maimed, your Majesty hath given me a rich chain of gold; – the noise (I say) of such instruments, as I hear now and then, (although their melody differ much from the sweet strokes and sounds of King Alexander’s Timotheus), do not only persuade and move, yea prick and spur me forward, to endeavour my wits daily (all vanities set apart) to virtuous learning and study, being thereto thus encouraged, so oftentimes by your Majesty’s manifold benefits, gifts, and rewards; but also I am enflamed and stirred, even now my tender age notwithstanding, to be serving your Grace, wishing every hair in my head for to be a worthy soldier of that same self heart, mind and stomach, that I am of. But where as I perceive that neither my wit, power, nor years, are at this present corresponding unto this, my good will: these shall be, therefore, (most gracious Princess) most humbly rendering unto your Majesty immortal thanks for your rich chain, and other your Highness’ sundry gifts, given unto me without any my deservings, from time to time. Trusting in God one day of my most bounden duty, to endeavour myself, with my faithful hearty service, to remember the same. And being afraid, with these my superfluous words to interturb (God forfend) your Highness, whose most excellent Majesty is always, and specially now, occupied in most weighty matters, thus I make an end. Praying unto Almighty God most humbly and faithfully to preserve, keep, and defend your Majesty, long reigning over us all, your true and faithful subjects, a most victorious and triumphant Princess. Amen. – From Temple Newsome, the 28th March 1554.

Your Majesty’s most bounden and obedient subject and servant,Henry Darnley.165

84

Keith, p. 278.

85

Melville’s Memoirs, p. 134.

86

Mary’s conduct upon this occasion may be compared with that of Elizabeth to her favourite Essex; but the Scottish Queen’s motives were of a far purer and better kind. “When Essex,” says Walpole, “acted a fit of sickness, not a day passed without the Queen’s sending after to see him; and she once went so far as to sit long by him, and order his broths and things.” “It may be observed,” remarks Chalmers, “that Mary was engaged (or rather secretly resolved) to marry Darnley, but Elizabeth only flirted with Essex.”

87

Keith, p. 270, and Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 214, et seq.

88

Castelnau in Keith, p. 277.

89

Keith, p. 275.

90

Keith, Appendix, p. 97.

91

Keith, p. 280.

92

Keith, p. 290.

93

Of Chatelherault, Argyle, Murray, Morton, and Glencairn, all of whom were summoned to the Convention, only Morton came. Keith, p. 287.

94

Keith, p. 291, et seq. – Chalmers, vol. i. p. 139, et seq.; vol. ii. p. 141. – Tytler, vol. i. p. 374, et seq. Melville’s account of this conspiracy is, that Murray and the other Lords “had made a mynt to tak the Lord Darnley, in the Queen’s company, at the Raid of Baith, and to have sent him in England as they allegit. I wot not what was in their minds, but it was ane evil-favoured enterprise whereintil the Queen was in danger, either of kepping (imprisonment) or heart-breaking; and as they had failed in their foolish enterprise, they took on plainly their arms of rebellion.” Melville, p. 135. There is some reason to believe, that Knox was implicated in this conspiracy; for, in the continuation of his History, written by his amanuensis, Richard Bannatyne, under the authority of the General Assembly, it appears that a Mr Hamilton, minister of St Andrews, had openly accused him of a share in it; and though Knox noticed the accusation, it does not appear that he ever satisfactorily refuted it. – Goodall, vol. i. p. 207.

95

Keith, p. 293 – Spottiswoode, p. 190.

96

Keith, p. 294, et seq.

97

Keith, p. 297.

98

Buchanan says, foolishly enough, that the predictions of “wizardly women” contributed much to hasten this marriage. They prophesied, it seems, that if it was consummated before the end of July, it would be happy for both; if not, it would be the source of much misery. It is a pity that these predictions were not true.

99

Randolph in Robertson, Appendix, No. XI. – Keith, p. 307. Miss Benger, vol. ii. p. 214.

100

Keith, p. 303 and 304. This was a day or two before Darnley’s marriage.

101

Keith, Appendix No. VII. p. 99, et seq.

102

M’Crie’s Life of Knox, vol. ii. p. 106; and Tytler’s Enquiry, vol. i. p. 362 and 367.

103

Knox, p. 389.

104

Keith, Appendix, p. 264.

105

Robertson, Appendix to Vol. i. Nos. XII. and XIII.

106

Keith, Appendix, p. 114.

107

Keith, p. 316, and Chalmers, vol. i. p. 155.

108

Chalmers, vol. i. p. 156.

109

Chalmers, vol. i. p. 157, and Keith, p. 319.

110

Keith, p. 319. – Melville, p. 135.

111

Blackwood in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 204.

112

Keith, p. 331.

113

Melville’s Memoirs, p. 147.

114

Conæus in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 25.

115

Dr Stuart, in support of his statements on this subject, quotes, in addition to the authorities already mentioned, Mezeray “Histoire de France,” tome 3, and Thuanus, “Historia sui Temporis,” lib. xxxvii. But we suspect he has done so at random; for, on referring to these works, we have been unable to discover any thing which bears upon the matter. Chalmers, who is in general acute and explicit enough, says, that these ambassadors came “to advise the Queen not to pardon the expatriated nobles;” vol. ii. p. 158. Laing, who writes with so much apparent candour and real ability against Mary that he almost makes “the worse appear the better reason,” has avoided falling into the gross error of Robertson. “It would be unjust,” he says, “to suppose, that, upon acceding to the Holy League, for the preservation of the Catholic faith, she was apprised of the full extent of the design to exterminate the Protestants by a general massacre throughout Christendom; but the instructions from her uncle rendered her inexorable towards the banished Lords.” – Laing’s Preliminary Dissertation to the History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 9.

116

Keith, p. 328 and 329.

117

Goodall, vol. i. p. 222.

118

Several of these pennies, as they were called, both of gold and silver, remain to this day; and some of them have been already noticed. In December 1565, there was stamped a silver penny, called the Mary Rial, bearing on one side a tree, with the motto, Dat gloria vires; and the circumscription, Exsurgat Deus, et dissipentur inimici ejus; and, on the other, Maria et Henricus, Dei Gratia, Regina et Rex Scotorum. Speaking of this coin, Keith says, that “the famous ewe-tree of Crookston, the inheritance of the family of Darnley, in the parish of Paisley, is made the reverse of this new coin; and the inscription about the tree, Dat gloria vires, is no doubt with a view to reflect honour on the Lennox family. This tree, he adds, which stands to this day, is of so large a trunk, and so well spread in its branches, that it is seen at several miles distance.” – Keith, p. 327, and Appendix, p. 118. – It stands no longer.

119

Buchanan’s History. – Melville’s Memoirs. – Keith, p. 325.

120

Goodall, vol. i. p. 227.

121

Melville’s Memoirs, p. 132 and 133.

122

We translate from the original French of an edition, of the Martyre de la Royne d’Escosse, printed at Antwerp, in the year 1583, – which very nearly agrees with the Edition in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 202.

123

Buchanan alone, of all the Scottish historians, has dared to insinuate the probability of an illicit intercourse having subsisted between Mary and Rizzio; and the calumny is too self-evidently false to merit a moment’s notice. Every respectable writer reprobates so disgusting a piece of scandal, however unfavourably inclined towards Mary in other respects. Camden, Castelnau, Robertson, Hume, Tytler, Laing, and Dr Stuart, all of whom think it worth while to advert to the subject in Notes, put the falsehood of Buchanan’s assertion beyond the most distant shadow of a doubt. Indeed, it is paying it too great a compliment to advert to it at all.

124

Miss Benger, oddly enough, says, it was on Saturday the 5th of April; a mistake into which no other historian with whom we are acquainted has fallen. – Miss Benger’s Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 233.

125

The Parliament had met upon the 7th, and Mary had opened it in person, unattended by Darnley, who refused to give it his countenance; but no business of importance had as yet been transacted.

126

This disease was “an inflammation of the liver, and a consumption of the kidneys.” —Keith, Appendix, p. 119.

127

Blackwood in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 204. – Goodall, vol. i. p. 252.

128

Stranguage, p. 33. – Crawford’s Memoirs, p. 9.

129

Keith, Appendix, p. 122.

130

Conæus in Jebb. Vol. ii. p. 25.

131

Robertson’s Appendix to vol. i. No. xv.

132

Keith, p. 330. – Appendix, p. 119. – Melville’s Memoirs, p. 148. – Buchanan’s History of Scotland, Book xvii. – Martyre de Marie in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 204. – Knox, p. 392. – Holinshed’s Chronicles, p. 382. – Robertson, Appendix to Vol. i. No. xv. – Some historians have maintained, that Rizzio was actually despatched in Mary’s presence. But this is not the fact, for Mary remained ignorant of his fate till next day. In a letter which the Earl of Bedford and Randolph wrote to the Privy Council of England, giving an account of this murder, and which has been published in the first series of “Ellis’s Original Letters, illustrative of English History,” (vol. ii. p. 207), we find these words: – “He was not slain in the Queen’s presence, as was said.” Holinshed and others are equally explicit. It has been likewise said, that it was not intended to have killed him that evening; but to have tried him next day, and then to have hanged or beheaded him publicly. That there is no foundation for this assertion, is proved by the authorities quoted above; and to these may be added the letter from Morton and Ruthven to Throckmorton, and “the bond of assurance for the murder to be committed,” granted by Darnley to the conspirators, on the 1st of March, both preserved by Goodall, vol. i. p. 264 and 266. That the conspirators meant, as others have insisted, to take advantage of the situation in which Mary then was, and terrify her into a miscarriage, which might have ended in her death, is unsupported by any evidence; nor can we see what purposes such a design would have answered.

133

Vide M’Crie’s Life of Knox, vol. i. p. 47.

134

Knox, p. 339. – Buchanan, Book XVII.

135

Keith, p. 332 – and Appendix, 126.

136

That something of the kind was actually contemplated, we learn from Mary herself. “In their council,” she says in the letter already quoted, “they thought it most expedient we should be warded in our castle of Stirling, there to remain till we had approved in Parliament all their wicked enterprises, established their religion, and given to the King the crown-matrimonial, and the whole government of our realm; or else, by all appearance, firmly purposed to have put us to death, or detained us in perpetual captivity.” – Keith, Appendix, p. 132.

137

Ruthven’s “Discourse” concerning the murder of Rizzio, in Keith, Appendix, p. 128.

138

Keith, p. 334. – Stuart’s History of Scotland, p. 138, et seq.

139

Melville’s Memoirs, p. 154 – Goodall, vol. i. p. 286. – Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 164.

140

Melville’s Memoirs, p. 156. – Keith, p. 337.

141

Melville’s Memoirs, p. 158.

142

Keith, p. 345, and Chalmers, vol. i. p. 180.

143

Buchanan’s History, Book XVIII. – His “Detection,” in Anderson’s Collections, vol. ii. p. 6.; and his “Oration,” p. 44.

144

Chalmers, vol. i. p. 181, et seq. Goodall, vol. i. p. 292, et seq.

145

Keith, p. 345.

146

Knox, p. 386 – Anderson, vol. i. p. 90 – Tytler, vol. ii. p. 39 – Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 206-207.

147

Knox, p. 396, and Chalmers, p. 219.

148

Knox, p. 392. Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 206 and 218. Laing, vol. i. p. 359. In the first edition of Tytler’s “Vindication,” Bothwell, being confounded with the former Earl, his father, was said to be about fifty-nine at this period. In the second edition, Tytler partly corrected his error, but not entirely; for he stated Bothwell’s age to be forty-three when he married. Chalmers, who is seldom wrong in the matter of dates, has settled the question.

149

Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 217.

150

Chalmers, vol. i. p. 183 and 184.

151

Maitland’s Official Letter to Catherine de Medicis, in Keith, p. 348.

152

These noblemen, it may be observed, instead of being the friends, were the personal and political enemies of Bothwell, with whom Darnley was less displeased than with them.

153

Goodall, vol. i. p. 284. – Keith, p. 348.

154

Le Croc’s Letter in Keith, p. 346.

155

Maitland’s Letter in Keith, p. 349.

156

Keith, idem, p. 346 and 349.

157

Keith, idem, p. 350.

158

Knox, p. 399.

159

The turn which Buchanan gives to the whole of this affair, in the work he libellously calls a “History,” scarcely deserves notice. “In the meantime,” he veraciously writes in his Eighteenth Book, “the King, finding no place for favour with his wife, is sent away with injuries and reproaches; and though he often tried her spirit, yet by no offices of observance could he obtain to be admitted to conjugal familiarity as before; whereupon he retired, in discontent, to Stirling.” In his “Detection,” he is still more ludicrously false. “In the meantime,” he writes, “the King commanded out of sight, and with injuries and miseries banished from her, kept himself close with a few of his servants at Stirling; for, alas! what should he else do? He could not creep into any piece of grace with the Queen, nor could get so much as to obtain his daily necessary expenses, to find his servants and horses. And, finally, with brawlings lightly rising for every small trifle, and quarrels, usually picked, he was chased out of her presence; yet his heart, obstinately fixed in loving her, could not be restrained, but he must needs come back to Edinburgh of purpose, with all kind of serviceable humbleness, to get some entry into her former favour, and to recover the kind society of marriage: who once again, with most dishonourable disdain excluded, once again returns from whence he came, there, as in solitary desert, to bewail his woful miseries.” Anderson, vol. ii. p. 9. – Another equally honest record of these times, commonly known by the name of “Murray’s or Cecil’s Journal,” the former having supplied the information to the latter, to answer his own views at a subsequent period, says, – “At this time, the King coming from Stirling, was repulsed with chiding.” The same Journal mentions, that, on the 24th of September, Mary lodged in the Chequer House, and met with Bothwell, – a story which Buchanan disgustingly amplifies in his Detection, though the Privy Council records prove that the Queen lodged in her Palace of Holyrood on the 24th with her Privy Council and officers of state in attendance. As to Buchanan’s complaint, that the King was stinted in his necessary expenses, the treasurer’s accounts clearly show its falsehood. “The fact is,” says Chalmers, “that he was allowed to order, by himself, payments in money and furnishments of necessaries from the public treasurer. And the treasurer’s accounts show that he was amply furnished with necessaries at the very time when those calumnious statements were asserted by men who knew them to be untrue. On two days alone, the 13th and 31st of August, the treasurer, by the King and Queen’s order, was supplied with a vast number of articles for the King’s use alone, amounting to 300l., which is more than the Queen had for six months, even including the necessaries which she had during her confinement.” – Chalmers, vol. i. p. 186. These minute details would be unworthy of attention, did they not serve to prove the difficulty of determining whether Buchanan’s patron, who was also Mary’s Prime Minister, or the Historian himself, possessed the superior talent for misrepresentation.