Bothwell had kept Mary at Dunbar for nearly a week, when, in order to make it be believed that her residence there was voluntary, he ventured to call together a few of the Lords of the Privy Council on whom he could depend, and on the 29th of April there was one unimportant act of Council passed, concerning provisions for the Royal Household. From the influence he at that time possessed over the Scottish nobles, Bothwell might have held a Privy Council every day at Dunbar, and whether he allowed the Queen, pro forma, to be present or not, nobody would have objected to any thing he proposed.87 In the meantime, mutual actions of divorce were raised by Bothwell and his wife, the Lady Jane Gordon, and being hurried through the courts, only a few days elapsed before they were obtained.88

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

Robertson, Appendix to vol. i. No. XVII.

Keith, Appendix, p. 139.

Keith, Preface, p. vii.

Melville’s Memoirs, p. 170.

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.”

Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 173. – Keith, Preface, p. vii.

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.

Keith, p. 359.

Anderson, vol. ii. p. 271.

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.

Knox, p. 400. – Keith, Preface, p. vii.

Keith, p. 369. – Knox, p. 400. – The Historie of King James the Sext, p. 5.

Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 176.

Melville, p. 192.

The Ruthven here spoken of is the son of the Lord Ruthven, who took so active a part in the murder.

Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 175 and 342.

Keith – Preface, p. viii.

Keith, p. 364.

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.

Chalmers, vol. i. p. 199; and vol. ii. p. 176.

Keith, Preface p. viii.

Anderson, vol. iv. p. 165. – Goodall, vol. ii. p. 76.

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 76. – et seq.

Birrel’s Dairy, p. 6. – Laing, vol. i. p. 30.

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.”

Morton’s Confession in Laing, vol. ii. p. 354; and Archibald Douglas’s Letter, ibid. p. 363.

Idem.

Lesley’s Defence in Anderson, vol. i. p. 75. – Buchanan’s History, p. 350. – Laing, vol. ii. p. 34.

Ormiston’s Confession in Laing, vol. ii. p. 322.

Paris’s Confession in Laing, vol. ii. p. 298-9.

Paris’s Deposition in Laing, vol. ii. p. 296.

Laing, vol. ii. p. 282 and 370.

Deposition of Hepburn – Anderson, vol. ii. p. 183.

Anderson, vol. ii. p. 183.

Keith, Preface, p. viii.

Anderson, vol. ii. p. 179.

Ibid. vol. ii. p. 184.

Laing, Appendix, p. 304.

Deposition of John Hay in Anderson, vol. ii. p. 177.

Deposition of William Powrie, in Anderson, vol. ii. p. 165.

Anderson, vol. ii. p. 183.

Ibid. vol. ii. p. 181.

Buchanan’s History, Book XVIII. may be compared with his Detection in Anderson, vol. i. p. 22 and 72.

Buchanan’s History, Book XVIII.

Freebairn’s Life of Mary, p. 112 and 114.

Deposition of Paris in Laing, vol. ii. p. 305.

Evidence of Thomas Nelson, Anderson, vol. iv. p. 165.

The Confessions and Depositions in Anderson, vol. ii. and vol. iv; and in Laing, vol. ii.

Melville’s Memoirs, p. 174. Lesley in Anderson, vol. i. p. 24. Freebairn, p. 115.

Anderson, vol. i. p. 36. – Goodall, vol. ii. p. 245.

Laing, vol. ii. p. 289 et 290.

Historie of King James the Sext, p. 6.

Miss Benger, vol. ii. p. 313.

Sanderson’s Life of Mary, p. 48. – Freebairn, p. 113.

Knox, p. 404.

Keith, p. 365.

Melville, p. 174.

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.

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.”

Keith, Preface, p. viii.

Anderson, vol. i. p. 36.

Lesley in Anderson, vol. i. p. 23.

Keith, p. 368.

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.

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.

Chalmers, vol. i. p. 208.

Vide these Letters in Anderson, vol. i. p. 40, or Keith, p. 369.

Anderson, vol. i. p. 50.

Goodall, vol. i. p. 346, et seq.

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?

Anderson, vol. i. p. 52.

Robertson – Appendix to vol. i. No. XIX.

Anderson, vol. ii. p. 103.

Anderson, vol. ii. p. 104, et seq. – and Keith, p. 375, et seq.

Anderson, vol. ii. p. 157.

Anderson, vol. i. p. 107; and Keith, p. 381.

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.

Keith, p. 390.

Keith, p. 383. – Melville’s Memoirs, p. 177. – Whittaker, vol. iii. p. 106 and 356.

Melville, p. 177.

Keith, p. 390.

Anderson, vol. i. p. 97. – Keith, p. 390.

Melville, p. 197.

Anderson, vol. i. p. 95.

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.

Vide Laing, vol. i. p. 86, and vol. ii. p. 105, and Whittaker, vol. iii. p. 116.

Keith, p. 383.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента

Купить и скачать всю книгу

<1...4 5 6

На страницу:

Перейти

6 из 6

Другие книги автора

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

Henry Bell