[50] Knox, p. 292.

[51] Keith, p 192.

[52] It is worth while attending to the very partial and grossly perverted account which Knox gives of this proclamation, actually introducing into his History an edition of it, fabricated by himself. He then proceeds to find fault with the Magistrates for yielding to "_Jezabel's_" commands, and remarks, in allusion to a counter proclamation which the Queen issued, that the town should be patent to all her lieges until they were found guilty of some offence,--"The Queen took upon her greater boldness than she and Balaam's bleating priests durst have attempted before. And so murderers, adulterers, thieves, wh.o.r.es, drunkards, idolaters, and all malefactors got protection under the Queen's wings, under colour that they were of her religion. And so got the Devil freedom again, whereas before he durst not have been seen by daylight upon the common streets. Lord deliver us from that bondage!"--Knox, p. 292-3.

[53] Randolph in Keith, p. 210.

[54] Goodall, vol. i. p. 199, et seq.

[55] Freebairn's translation of Bois Guilbert, p. 32, et seq.--Knox's History, p. 307.--Chalmers, vol. i. p. 62, and vol. ii. p. 212.--Keith, p.

215 and 216.--and Goodall, vol. i. p. 191.

[56] Knox, p. 302.--Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 425.

[57] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 78.; vol. ii. p. 293, et seq.; and p. 426, et seq.

[58] Knox, p. 315.; Goodall, vol. i. p. 192.--Chalmers says, that Sir John Gordon's antagonist was not a Lord Ogilvy, but only James Ogilvy of Cardell, a son of the deceased Alexander Ogilvy of Findlater. But as he does not give any authority for this a.s.sertion, we have preferred following Knox, Goodall, and Robertson.

[59] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 80.; and vol. ii. p. 298.

[60] Keith, p. 225.

[61] Keith, p. 226.

[62] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 84, and vol. ii. p. 302.

[63] Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 306.

[64] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 90.

[65] "The time and place for perpetrating this horrid deed," says Robertson, "were frequently appointed; but the executing of it was wonderfully prevented by some of those unforeseen accidents which so often occur to disconcert the schemes, and to intimidate the hearts of a.s.sa.s.sins." There is something strangely inconsistent between this statement, and that which Robertson makes immediately afterwards in a note, where he says,--"We have imputed the violent conduct of the Earl of Huntly to a sudden start of resentment, without charging him with any premeditated purpose of rebellion." And that Huntly did not intend to seize the Queen and her ministers, the historian argues upon these grounds:--"1st, On the Queen's arrival in the North, he laboured in good earnest to gain her favour, and to obtain a pardon for his son.--2d, He met the Queen, first at Aberdeen and then at Rothiemay, whither he would not have ventured to come had he harboured any such treasonable resolution.--3d, His conduct was irresolute and wavering, like that of a man disconcerted by an unforeseen danger, not like one executing a concerted plan.--4th, The most considerable persons of his clan submitted to the Queen, and found surety to obey her commands; had the Earl been previously determined to rise in arms against the Queen, or to seize her ministers, it is probable he would have imparted it to his princ.i.p.al followers, nor would they have deserted him in this manner," Yet in direct opposition to this view of the matter, Robertson, in telling the story of Huntly's wrongs, throws upon him the whole blame, and entirely exculpates Murray.--Robertson, vol. i. p. 222, et seq.

[66] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 93, and vol. ii. p. 306.

[67] Keith, p. 226.

[68] Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 307.

[69] Knox, p. 320.--Buchanan's History, Book xvii.--Chalmers, vol. i. p.

95, and vol. ii. p. 309, whose authority is a letter of Randolph, preserved in the Paper Office, and written the evening of the very day on which the battle took place. Randolph, though not on the field himself, had two servants there, and saw the dead body of the Earl, when it was brought into Aberdeen. Robertson and others have said, that Huntly, who was very corpulent, was slain on the field, or trodden to death in the pursuit. Chalmers, however, has truth on his side, when he remarks, that "Doctor Robertson, who never saw those instructive letters (of Randolph), grossly misrepresents the whole circ.u.mstances of that affair at Corrachie; he says, 'Huntly advanced with a considerable force towards Aberdeen, and filled the Queen's _small court_ with the _utmost consternation_; and that Murray had only a handful of men in whom he could confide; but, by his steady courage and prudent conduct, gained a miraculous victory.' For the a.s.sertion of Murray's having only a _handful of men_, he quotes Keith, p.

230, in which there is not one word of the _force_ at Corrachie on either side. The force there spoken of is what the Queen had about her _two months before_ on her first progress into the North, not on her return to Aberdeen, after new troops had been raised, and old ones summoned to that premeditated and barbarous scene." Knox is also a better authority upon this subject than Robertson. He gives the following curious account of the Earl's death and subsequent fate:--"The Earl, immediately after his taking, departed this life, without any wound, or yet appearance of any stroke, whereof death might have ensued; and so, because it was late, he was cast over athwart a pair of creels, and so was carried to Aberdeen, and was laid in the tolbooth thereof, that the response which his wife's witches had given might be fulfilled, who all affirmed (as the most part say), that that same night he should be in the tolbooth of Aberdeen, without any wound upon his body. When his lady got knowledge thereof, she blamed her princ.i.p.al witch, called Janet; but she stoutly defended herself (as the Devil can ever do), and affirmed that she gave a true answer, albeit she spoke not all the truth; for she knew that he should be there dead." Knox, p. 328. "It is a memorable fact," Chalmers elsewhere remarks, "that Huntly and Sutherland" (who was forfeited soon afterwards, as implicated in this pretended rebellion) "were two of those n.o.bles who had sent Bishop Lesley to France, with offers of duty and services to the Queen, while Murray, Maitland, and other considerable men offered their duties and services to Elizabeth."

[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 n.o.bleman 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 appet.i.tes, 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 pa.s.sage, 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 amba.s.sador 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 emba.s.sy 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 princ.i.p.al 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 p.r.i.c.k 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 G.o.d 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 (G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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.[*]

[*] Ellis's Collection of "Original Letters Ill.u.s.trative of English History." Second series, vol. ii. p. 249.

[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 Ess.e.x; but the Scottish Queen's motives were of a far purer and better kind. "When Ess.e.x," says Walpole, "acted a fit of sickness, not a day pa.s.sed 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 Ess.e.x."

[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.