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

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, whores, 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 assertion, 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 assassins.” 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 principal 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 circumstances 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 assertion 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 principal 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 nobles 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 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.