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

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 Cæsar, might be, with propriety, applied to the Earl of Murray:

“You all did see that, on the Lupercal,I thrice presented him a kingly crown,Which he did thrice refuse. – Was this ambition?”

139

Anderson, vol. ii. p. 251 and 254. – Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 355.

140

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 66. – Anderson, vol. ii. p. 206 et seq.

141

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 299, and Chalmers, vol. i. p. 275 and 278.

142

Jebb, vol. ii. p. 230. – Keith, p. 471 – and Chalmers, vol. i. p. 275.

143

Sir William Drury’s Letter in Keith, p. 470.

144

Buchanan’s Cameleon, p. 13.

145

Jebb, vol. ii. p. 65 and 230. – Keith, p. 471. – Freebairn, p. 152, et seq. – Chalmers, vol. i. p. 277, et seq. The interest taken in Queen Mary by George Douglas, is ascribed by Mackenzie to a motive less pure than the affection of a good subject. His chief characteristic, we are told by that author, was an excessive love of money, and it was by bribing him, he asserts, with the best part of what gold and jewels she had about her, that Mary prevailed upon him to assist her. But this statement does not seem well authenticated. Another story, still more improbable, was told by the Earl of Murray to the English ambassador, Sir William Drury, namely, that Mary had entreated him to allow her to have a husband, and had named George Douglas as the person she would wish to marry. Murray must have fabricated this falsehood, in order to lower the dignity of the Queen; but he surely forgot that the reason assigned in justification of her imprisonment in Loch-Leven, was her alleged determination not to consent to a separation from Bothwell. How then did she happen to wish to marry another? See Sir William Drury’s Letter in Keith, p. 469.

146

Keith, p. 472, et seq.

147

Buchanan, Book xix. – Melville’s Memoirs, p. 200. et seq. – Keith, p. 477. – Calderwood, Crawfurd, and Holinshed. The accounts which historians give of this battle are so confused and contradictory, that it is almost impossible to furnish any very distinct narrative of it, even by collating them all. Robertson hardly attempts any detail, and the few particulars which he does mention, are in several instances erroneous.

148

Keith, p. 481 and 482. – Anderson, vol. iv. p. 1.

149

Anderson, vol. iv. p. 1. et seq. – Keith, p. 481.

150

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 69.

151

Chalmers, vol. i. p. 283.

152

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 71.

153

Anderson, vol. iv. p. 6. – Chalmers, vol. i. p. 288. Even at Carlisle, Mary was always strictly watched. In one of his letters to Cecil, Knollys writes thus: – “Yesterday, her Grace went out at a postern, to walk on the playing green, towards Scotland; and we, with twenty-two halberdeers, diverse gentlemen and other servants, waited upon her. About twenty of her retinue played at foot-ball before her the space of two hours, very strongly, nimbly, and skilfully, – without any foul play offered, the smallness of their ball occasioning their fair play. And before yesterday, since our coming, she went but twice out of the town, once to the like play of foot-ball, in the same place, and once she rode out a hunting the hare, she galloping so fast upon every occasion, and her whole retinue being so well horsed, that we, upon experience thereof, doubting that, upon a set course, some of her friends out of Scotland might invade and assault us upon the sudden, for to rescue and take her from us; we mean hereafter, if any such riding pastimes be required that way, so much to fear the endangering of her person by some sudden invasion of her enemies, that she must hold us excused, in that behalf.”

154

Anderson, vol. iv. p. 95. – Stuart, vol. i. p. 300. It is of Dr Stuart’s translation that we have availed ourselves.

155

Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 33.

156

Buchanan, book xix. It is worth remarking, that of these particular friends of Murray, the two Commissioners, Lord Lindsay and the Commendator of Dunfermlin, and the two lawyers, Macgill and Balnaves, sat on the trial of Bothwell when he was unanimously acquitted. Yet they afterwards accused the Queen of consenting to an unfair trial.

157

Anderson, vol. iv. Part ii. p. 3.

158

Anderson, vol. iv. Part I. p. 12.

159

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 128.

160

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 144.

161

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 162.

162

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 62.

163

We do not at present stop the course of our narrative to examine these letters more minutely, but we shall devote some time to their consideration afterwards.

164

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 182.

165

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 184.

166

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 206.

167

Ibid. p. 220.

168

Ibid. p. 221.

169

Ibid. p. 184 and 206.

170

Ibid. p. 283.

171

Ibid. p. 312.

172

Ibid. p. 300 and 301.

173

There is one other circumstance connected with this conference, which, though not bearing any immediate reference to Mary, is worth mentioning. We allude to the challenges which passed between Lord Lindsay, one of Murray’s Commissioners, and Lord Herries, one of Mary’s most constant and faithful servants. Lindsay, whose passionate violence we have formerly had occasion to notice, attempted to force a quarrel upon Herries, by writing him the following letter:

“Lord Herries, – I am informed that you have spoken and affirmed, that my Lord Regent’s Grace and his company here present, were guilty of the abominable murder of the late King, our Sovereign Lord’s father. If you have so spoken, you have said untruly, and have lied in your throat, which I will maintain, God willing, against you, as becomes me of honour and duty. And hereupon I desire your answer. Subscribed with my hand, at Kingston, the twenty-second day of December 1568. Patrick Lindsay.”