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

“Quae sortem antevenis meritis, virtutibus annos,
Sexum animis, morum nobilitate genus.”

There is, besides, a natural feeling of loyalty, which, though it may be evanescent, hardly fails to be kindled in the breasts of the populace, at the sight of their native sovereign. The Scots, though they frequently were far from being contented with the measures pursued by their monarchs, have been always celebrated for their attachment to their persons. Mary, on her first landing, became aware of this truth. As soon as it was known that she intended returning from all the splendours of France, to the more homely comforts of the land of her birth, the people, flattered by the preference she was about to show them, abated somewhat of their previous asperity. They were the more pleased, that she came to them, not as the Queen of France, who might have regarded Scotland as only a province of her empire, but as their own exclusive and independent sovereign. They recollected that she had been at the disposal of the Estates of the country, from the time she was seven days old, and they almost felt as if she had been a child of their own rearing. They knew, also, that she had made a narrow escape in crossing the seas; and the confidence she evidently placed in them, by casting anchor in Leith Roads, with only two galleys, did not pass unnoticed. But she had arrived sooner than was expected; for, so little were they aware of her intended motions, that when her two ships were first observed in the Frith, from the Castle of Edinburgh, no suspicion was entertained that they carried the Queen and her suite. It was not, till a royal salute was fired in the Roads, that her arrival was positively known, and that the people began to flock in crowds to the shore.

On the 20th or 21st of August, 1561, the Queen landed at Leith. Here she was obliged to remain the whole day, as the preparations for her reception at Holyroodhouse were not completed. The multitude continued in the interval to collect at Leith, and on the roads leading to the Palace. On the road between Leith and Restalrig, and from thence to the Abbey, the different trades and corporations of Edinburgh were drawn up in order, lining the way with their banners and bands of music. Towards evening, horses were brought for the Queen and her attendants. When Mary saw them, accustomed as she had been to the noble and richly caparisoned steeds of the Parisian tournaments, she was struck both with the inferiority of their breed, and the poorness of their furnishings. She sighed, and could not help remarking the difference to some of her friends. “But they mean well,” said she, “and we must be content.” As she passed along, she was every where greeted with enthusiastic shouts of applause – the involuntary homage which the beauty of her countenance, the elegance of her person, and the graceful dignity of her bearing, could not fail to draw forth. Bonfires were lighted in all directions; and though illuminations were then but indifferently understood in Scotland, something of the kind seems to have been attempted. On her arrival at the Palace, all the musicians of Edinburgh collected below her windows, and in strains of most discordant music continued all night to testify their joy for her return. Some of the more rigid Reformers, willing to yield in their own way to the general feeling, assembled together in a knot, and sung psalms in her honour. Among the musical instruments, the bagpipes were preeminently distinguished, which, not exactly suiting the uncultivated taste of Brantome, he pathetically exclaims, “He! quelle musique! et quel repos pour sa nuit!”[41 - Jebb, vol. ii. p. 484. Keith, p. 180. Miss Benger, vol. ii. p. 125. In an anonymous French work, entitled, “Histoire de Marie Stuart, Reine d’Ecosse et de France,” &c. respectably written on the whole, there is an amusing mistake concerning the locality of Holyroodhouse. In tom. i. p. 181, it is said, “The Queen landed at Leith, and then departed for L’Islebourg,” (the name anciently given to Edinburgh), “a celebrated Abbey a mile or two distant. In this Abbey Mary remained for three weeks, and in the month of October 1561 took her departure for Edinburgh.” This departure for Edinburgh alludes to the visit which Mary paid, a short time after her arrival, to the Castle.]

It is worth while remarking here, how Knox, in his History of the Reformation, betrays his chagrin at the affectionate manner in which Mary was received. “The very face of the heavens, at the time of her arrival,” he says, “did manifestly speak what comfort was brought into this country with her, by sorrow, dolor, darkness, and all impiety; for in the memory of man that day of the year was never seen a more dolorous face of the heavens, than was at her arrival, which two days after did so continue; for, besides the surface wet, and the corruption of the air, the mist was so thick and dark, that scarce could any man espy another the length of two pair of butts. The sun was not seen to shine two days before, nor two days after. That forewarning gave God to us, but alas! the most part were blind.”[42 - The day that his present Majesty George IV. arrived at Leith, in August 1822 (whose landing and progress to Holyroodhouse, though much more brilliant, resembled in some respects that of his ancestor Mary), was as wet and unfavourable as the weather so piously described by Knox. Was this a “forewarning” also of the “comfort” our gracious Sovereign brought into the country? If Knox believed in warnings, there is no telling to what conclusions these warnings might have led.] Knox proceeds to reprobate, in the severest terms, the unhallowed amusements which Mary permitted at Holyroodhouse. “So soon as ever her French fillocks, fiddlers, and others of that band, got the house alone, there might be seen skipping not very comely for honest women. Her common talk was, in secret, that she saw nothing in Scotland but gravity, which was altogether repugnant to her nature, for she was brought up in joyeusitye.” If Knox really believed in the omens he talks of, or thought the less of a young and beautiful woman for indulging in innocent recreation, his judgment is to be pitied. If he, in truth, did not give any credence to the one, and saw no sin in the other, his candour and sincerity cannot be very highly praised.

M’Crie, the able but too partial biographer of Knox, and the defender of all his errors and failings, speaking of Mary at this period, says; – “Nursed from her infancy in a blind attachment to the Roman Catholic religion, every means had been employed before she left France, to strengthen this prejudice, and to inspire her with aversion to the religion which had been embraced by her people. She was taught that it would be the great glory of her reign, to reduce her kingdom to the obedience of the Romish See, and to co-operate with the Popish Princes on the Continent in extirpating heresy. With these fixed prepossessions, Mary came into Scotland, and she adhered to them with singular pertinacity to the end of her life.”[43 - M’Crie’s Life of Knox, vol. ii. p. 22.] The whole of this statement is in the highest degree erroneous. We have seen that Mary was not nursed in a blind attachment to the Catholic religion – some of her best friends, and even one or two of her preceptors, being attached to the new opinions. We have seen, that so far from having any “prejudice” strengthened before she left France, she was expressly advised to give her support to the Reformers; and we have heard from her own lips, her mature determination to tolerate every species of worship throughout her kingdom. That she ever thought of “co-operating with the Popish Princes of the Continent, that she might reduce her kingdom to the obedience of the Romish See, and extirpate heresy,” will be discovered immediately to be a particularly preposterous belief, when we find her intrusting the reins of Government to the leaders of the Reformed party. To this system of moderation, much beyond that of the age in which she lived, Mary adhered, “with singular pertinacity, to the end of her life.” M’Crie, in proof of his gratuitous assertions, affirms, that she never examined the subjects of controversy between the Papists and Protestants. This also is incorrect, as he would have known, had he read that letter of Throckmorton’s, in which, as has been seen, she informed the Ambassador of the frequent opportunities she had enjoyed of hearing the whole matter discussed in the presence of the Cardinal Lorraine; and the confession which that discussion extorted both from the Cardinal and herself, of the necessity of some reformation among the Catholics, though not to the extent to which the Protestants pushed it. M’Crie further objects, that Mary never went to hear Knox, or any of the Reformed divines, preach. Knox, from the invariable contempt with which he affected to treat Mary, no doubt particularly deserved such a compliment; and as to the other divines, by all of whom she was hated, what would have been the use of leaving her own chapel to listen to sermons which could not have altered the firm conviction of her mind, and which, consequently, it would have been hypocrisy to pretend to admire? We return from this digression.

The nobility, who now flocked to Holyrood from all parts of the country, constituted that portion of the inhabitants of Scotland, who, for many centuries, had exercised almost unlimited influence over their native sovereigns. Their mutual dissensions during the late long minority, had a good deal weakened their respective strength; and the progress of time was gradually softening the more repulsive features of the feudal system. But still the Scottish barons deemed themselves indispensable to the councils of their monarch, and entitled to deliver opinions, which they expected would be followed, on every affair of state. They collected at present, under the influence of a thousand contending interests and wishes. With some of the more distinguished figures in the group, it will be necessary to make the reader better acquainted.

Of the Lord James, who was now shortly to become the Earl of Murray, the title by which he is best known in Scottish history, a good deal has already been said. That he must secretly have regretted his sister’s return to Scotland, may be safely concluded, from the facts formerly stated. He was too skilful a politician, however, to betray his disappointment. Had he openly ventured to oppose Mary, the result would have been at all events uncertain, and his own ruin might have been the ultimate consequence. He considered it more prudent to use every means in his power to conciliate her friendship; and wrought so successfully, that before long, he found himself the person of by far the most consequence in the kingdom. Mary, perhaps, trusted too implicitly to his advice, and left too much to his controul; yet it is difficult to see how she could have managed otherwise. It is but fair also to add, that for several years Murray continued to keep his ambition (which, under a show of moderation, was in truth enormous) within bounds. Nor does there appear to be any evidence sufficient to stamp Murray with that deeper treachery and blacker guilt, which some writers have laid to his charge. The time, however, is not yet arrived for considering his conduct in connexion with the darker events of Mary’s reign. The leading fault of his administration is, that it was double-faced. In all matters of importance, he allowed himself to be guided as much by the wishes of Elizabeth, secretly communicated to him, as by those of his own Sovereign. He probably foresaw that, if he ever quarrelled with Mary, it would be through the assistance of the English Queen alone he could hope to retrieve his fortunes. This subservience to Elizabeth, among those in whom she confided, was, indeed, the leading misfortune of Mary’s reign. Had her counsellors been unbiassed, and her subjects undistracted by English intrigue, her prudent conduct would have got the better of the internal dissensions in her kingdom, and she would have governed in peace, perhaps in happiness. But it was Elizabeth’s jealous and narrow-minded policy, to prevent, if possible, this consummation. With infinite art, and, if the term is not debased by its application, with no little ability, she accomplished her wishes, principally through the agency of the ambitious and the self-interested, among Mary’s ministers. One of these, the Earl of Murray, unquestionably was. At the time of which we are writing, he was in his thirty-first year, possessing considerable advantages both of face and person, but of reserved, austere, and rather forbidding manners. Murray’s mother, who was the Lady Margaret Erskine, daughter of Lord Erskine, had married Sir Robert Douglas of Lochleven. He had also, as has been mentioned, several illegitimate brothers, particularly Lord John and Lord Robert, and one sister, Jane, who married the Earl of Argyle, and to whom Mary became very sincerely attached.

Associated with the Earl of Murray, both as a leader of the Reformers, and as a servant of Elizabeth, but not allowing his ambitious views to carry him quite so far as the Earl, was William Maitland of Lethington, Mary’s Secretary of State. He was the eldest son of Sir Richard Maitland of Lethington, and was about five years older than Murray. He had been educated at the University of St Andrews, and had travelled a good deal on the Continent, where he studied civil law. John Knox, in his History, claims the honour of having converted Maitland to the Reformed opinions. Whether this be true or not, it is certain that, after having for some time co-operated with Mary of Guise, he finally deserted her, and continued to act with the Reformers, as Secretary of State, an office to which he had been appointed for life, in 1558. It has been already seen, that a close and confidential intercourse subsisted between him and Cecil; and that he too would have been glad, had Mary’s return to Scotland been prevented. That Maitland possessed an acute and subtle genius, there can be no doubt; that he had cultivated his mind to good purpose, and understood the art of composition as well as any man of the age, is undeniable. That his manners were more polished than those of most of the Scottish nobility, is also true; but, that his talents were of that high and exquisite kind, which Robertson and some other historians have described, does not appear. During his political career, many instances occur, which seem to imply a vacillating and unsteady temperament, a fault which can hardly be forgiven in a statesman.

James Douglas, Earl of Morton, another associate of Murray, was one of the most powerful and least respectable of those who had embraced the Reformation. Restless, factious, crafty, avaricious and cruel, nothing could have saved him from general odium, but his pretended zeal for religion. This was a cloak for many sins; by flattering the vanity of Knox and the other gospel-ministers, he contrived to cover the hollowness of his character, and to patch up a reputation for sanctity. In consequence of the rebellion of the Earl of Angus, his uncle, during the reign of James V., Morton had been obliged to spend several years in England, where he lived in great poverty. But the only effect adversity had produced upon him, was a determination to be more rapacious when he recovered his power. His ambition was of a more contracted and selfish kind than Murray’s, and he had not so cool a head, or so cautious a hand.

The Duke of Chatelherault, Mary’s nearest relation, being advanced in years, had retired from public life. The Earl of Arran, his son, who, it will be remembered, had been induced to propose himself as a husband for Elizabeth, was of a weak and almost crazed intellect. Indeed it was not long before the increasing strength of the malady made it necessary to confine him. He came to Court, however, upon Mary’s arrival, and having been unsuccessful with Elizabeth, chose to fall desperately in love with his own Queen. But Mary had always an aversion to him, originating no doubt in the want of delicacy towards her, which had characterized his negociations with Elizabeth, and confirmed by his own presuming and disagreeable manners. His father’s natural brother, the Archbishop of St Andrews, is the only other member of the family worth mentioning. He was still staunch to the Roman Catholic party; but had of late seen the wisdom of remaining quiet, and though he became rather a favourite with Mary, it does not appear that he henceforth took a very active interest in public affairs.[44 - Miss Benger (vol. ii. p. 132) erroneously supposes, that the Archbishop of St Andrews had died before Mary’s return to Scotland. She should have known that it was he who presided at the baptism of James VI., of which ceremony she gives so particular an account. See Keith, p. 360, and Chalmers, vol. i. p. 196.]

James Hepburne, Earl of Bothwell, though some of the leading features of his character had hardly shown themselves at the period of which we speak, merits nevertheless, from the part he subsequently acted, especial notice at present. He had succeeded his father in his titles and estates in the year 1556, when he was five or six and twenty years of age. He enjoyed not only large estates, but the hereditary offices of Lord High Admiral of Scotland, Sheriff of Berwick, Haddington and Edinburgh, and Baillie of Lauderdale. With the exception of the Duke of Chatelherault, he was the most powerful nobleman in the southern districts of Scotland. Soon after coming to his titles, he began to take an active share in public business. In addition to his other offices, he was appointed the Queen’s Lieutenant on the Borders, and Keeper of Hermitage Castle, by the Queen Regent, to whom he always remained faithful, in opposition to the Lord James, and what was then termed the English faction. He went over to France on the death of Francis II. to pay his duty to Mary, and on his return to Scotland, was by her intrusted with the discharge of an important commission regarding the Government. Though all former differences were now supposed to have been forgotten, there was not, nor did there ever exist, a very cordial agreement between the Earls of Murray and Bothwell. They were both about the same age, but their dispositions were very different. Murray was self-possessed, full of foresight, prudent and wary. Bothwell was bold, reckless, and extravagant. His youth had been devoted to every species of dissipation; and even in manhood, he seemed more intent on pleasure than on business. This was a sort of life which Murray despised, and perhaps he calculated that Bothwell would never aim at any other. But, though guided by no steady principles, and devoted to licentiousness, Bothwell was nevertheless not the mere man of pleasure. He was all his life celebrated for daring and lawless exploits, and vanity or passion, were motives whose force he was never able to resist. Unlike Murray, who, when he had an end in view, made his advances towards it as cautiously as an Indian hunter, Bothwell dashed right through, as careless of the means by which he was to accomplish his object, as of the consequences that were to ensue. His manner was of that frank, open, and uncalculating kind, which frequently catches a superficial observer. They who did not study him more closely, were apt to imagine that he was merely a blustering, good-natured, violent, headstrong man, whose manners must inevitably have degenerated into vulgarity, had he not been nobly born, and accustomed to the society of his peers. But much more serious conclusions might have drawn by those who had penetration enough to see under the cloak of dissoluteness, in which he wrapped himself and his designs. With regard to his personal appearance, it does not seem to have been remarkably prepossessing. Brantome says, that he was one of the ugliest men he had ever seen, and that his planners were correspondently outré.[45 - Jebb, vol. ii. p. 486. Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 202.] Buchanan, who must have known Bothwell well, and who draws his character with more accuracy than was to have been expected from so partial a writer, says, in his “Detection:” – “Was there in him any gift of eloquence, or grace of beauty, or virtue of mind, garnished with the benefits which we call of fortune? As for his eloquence and beauty, we need not make long tale of them, since both they that have seen him can well remember his countenance, his gait, and the whole form of his body, how gay it was; they that have heard him, are not ignorant of his rude utterance and blockishness.” As to Bothwell’s religious opinions, Buchanan remarks very truly, that wavering between the different factions, and despising either side, he counterfeited a love of both.[46 - Buchanan’s Detection, in Anderson’s Collections, vol. ii. p. 52 and 58.] Such was the man of whom we shall have occasion to say so much in the course of these Memoirs.

In the Lords Ruthven and Lindsay, remained unaltered all the characteristics of the ruder feudal chiefs, rendered still more repulsive by their bigoted zeal in favour of the Reformed opinions. They were men of coarse and contracted minds, fit instigators to villany, or apt tools in the hands of those who were more willing to plan than to execute.

Opposed to all these nobles, was the great lay head of the Catholic party in Scotland, John, Earl of Huntly. His jurisdiction and influence extended over nearly the whole of the north of Scotland, from Aberdeen to Inverness. He was born in 1510, and had been a personal friend and favourite of James V. He ranked in Parliament as the Premier Earl of Scotland, and in 1546, was appointed Chancellor of the kingdom. He was always opposed to the English party, and had been taken prisoner at the battle of Pinkie, fighting against the claims of Edward VI., upon the infant Mary. He made his escape, in 1548, and as a reward for his services and sufferings, obtained, in the following year, a grant of the Earldom of Murray, which, however, he again resigned in 1554. He continued faithful to the Queen Regent till her death. Upon that occasion, we have seen that he and other nobles sent Lesley, with certain proposals, to Mary. He was an honourable man and a good subject, though the termination of his career was a most unfortunate one. The respect which his memory merits, is founded on the conviction, that he had too great a love for his country and sovereign ever to have consented to have made the one little better than tributary to England, or to have betrayed the other into the hands of her deadliest enemy.

Such were the men who were now to become Mary’s associates and counsellors. The names of most of them occur as members of the Privy Council which she constituted shortly after her return. It consisted of the Duke of Chatelherault, the Earl of Huntly, the Earl of Argyle, the Earl of Bothwell, the Earl of Errol, Earl Marschall, the Earl of Athol, the Earl of Morton, the Earl of Montrose, the Earl of Glencairn, the Lord Erskine, and the Lord James Stuart. In this Council, the influence of the Lord James, backed as it was by a great majority of Protestant nobles, carried every thing before it.

Elizabeth, finding that Mary had arrived safely in her own country, and had been well received there, lost no time in changing her tone towards the Scottish queen. Her English resident in Scotland, was the celebrated Randolph, whom she kept as a sort of accredited spy at Mary’s court. He has rendered himself notorious by the many letters he wrote to England upon Scottish affairs. He had an acute, inquisitive, and gossiping turn of mind. His style is lively and amusing; and though the office he had to perform is not to be envied, he seems to have entered on it con amore, and with little remorse of conscience. His epistles are mostly preserved, and are valuable from containing pictures of the state of manners in Scotland at the time, not to be found any where else, though not always to be depended on as accurate chronicles of fact. To Randolph, the Queen of England now wrote, desiring him to offer her best congratulations to Mary upon her safe arrival. She sent him also a letter which he was to deliver to Mary, in which she disclaimed ever having had the most distant intention of intercepting her on her voyage. Mary answered Elizabeth’s letter with becoming cordiality. She, likewise, sent Secretary Maitland into England, to remain for some time as her resident at Elizabeth’s Court. She was well aware for what purposes Randolph was ordered to continue in Edinburgh; and said, that as it seemed to be Elizabeth’s wish that he should remain, she was content, but that she would have another in England as crafty as he. Maitland was certainly as crafty, but his craftiness was unfortunately too frequently directed against Mary herself.

CHAPTER VIII.

JOHN KNOX, THE REFORMERS, AND THE TURBULENT NOBLES

Mary had been only a few days in Scotland when she was painfully reminded of the excited and dangerous state of feeling which then prevailed on the important subject of Religion. Her great and leading desire was to conciliate all parties, and to preserve, unbroken, the public peace. With this view she had issued proclamations, charging her subjects to conduct themselves quietly; and announcing her intention to make no alteration in the form of religion as existing in the country at her arrival. Notwithstanding these precautions, the first breach of civil order took place at the very Palace of Holyroodhouse. Mary had intimated her intention to attend the celebration of a solemn mass in her chapel, on Sunday the 24th of August, 1561, the first Sunday she spent in Scotland. The Reformers, as soon as they got the upper hand, had prohibited this service under severe penalties, and these principles of intolerance they were determined to maintain. Mary had not interfered with their mode of worship; but this was not enough; – they considered themselves called upon to interfere with hers. In anticipation of the mass, for which she had given orders, the godly, Knox tells us, met together and said, – “Shall that idol be suffered again to take place within this realm? It shall not.” They even repented that they had not pulled down the chapel itself at the time they had demolished most of the other religious houses; for the sparing of any place where idols were worshipped was, in their opinion, “the preserving the accursed thing.” When Sunday arrived, a crowd collected on the outside of the chapel; and Lord Lindsay, whose bigotry has been already mentioned, called out with fiery zeal, – “The idolatrous priests shall die the death, according to God’s law.” The Catholics were insulted as they entered the chapel, and the tumult increased so much, that they feared to commence the service. At length, the Lord James, whose superior discrimination taught him, that his party, by pushing things to this extremity, were doing their cause more harm than good, stationed himself at the door, and declared he would allow no evil-disposed person to enter. His influence with the godly was such, that they ventured not to proceed to violence against his will. He was a good deal blamed, however, by Knox for his conduct. When the service was concluded, Lord James’s two brothers were obliged to conduct the priests home, as a protection to them from the insults of the people; and in the afternoon, crowds collected in the neighbourhood of the palace, who, by their disloyal language and turbulent proceedings, signified to the Queen their disapprobation, that she had dared to worship her God in the manner which seemed to herself most consistent, both with the revealed and natural law. Many of Mary’s friends, who had accompanied her from France, were so disgusted with the whole of this scene, that they announced their intention of returning sooner than they might otherwise have done. “Would to God,” exclaims Knox, “that altogether, with the mass, they had taken good-night of the realm for ever!”

On the following Sunday, Knox took the opportunity of preaching, what Keith might have termed, another “thundering sermon” against idolatry. In this discourse he declared, that one mass was more fearful to him than ten thousand armed enemies would be, landed in any part of the realm on purpose to suppress the whole religion. No one will deny, that the earlier Reformers of this and all other countries would, naturally and properly, look upon Popish rites with far greater abhorrence than is done by the strictest Protestants of more modern times. Nor is it wonderful that the ablest men among them, (and John Knox was one of those), should have given way so far to the feelings of the age, as to be unable to draw the exact line of distinction between the improvements of the new gospel, and the imperfections of the old. The faith which they established, was of a purer, simpler, and better kind than that from which they were converted. Yet, making all these allowances, there does seem to have been something unnecessarily overbearing and illiberal in the spirit which animated Knox and some of his followers. When contrasted with the mildness of Mary at least, and even with the greater moderation observed in some of the other countries of Europe, where the Reformation was making no less rapid progress, the anti-Catholic ardor of the good people of Scotland must be allowed to have over-stepped considerably the just limits of Christian forbearance. It is useful also to observe the inconsistencies which still existed in the Reformed faith. Whilst the Catholic religion was reprobated, Catholic customs springing out of that religion do not seem to have called forth any censure. On the very day on which Knox preached the sermon already mentioned, a great civic banquet was given by the city of Edinburgh to Mary’s uncles, the Duke Danville, and other of her French friends; and, generally speaking, Sunday was, throughout the country, the favourite day for festivities of all kinds.

The mark of attention paid to her relations pleased Mary, but her pleasure was rendered imperfect, by perceiving how powerful and unlooked for an enemy both she and they had in John Knox. Aware of the liberal manner in which she had treated him and his party, she thought it hard that he should so unremittingly exert his influence to stir up men’s minds against her. That this influence was of no insignificant kind, is attested by very sufficient evidence. Knox was not a mere polemical churchman. His friends and admirers intrusted to him their temporal as well as spiritual interests. He was often selected as an umpire in civil disputes of importance; and persons whom the Town-council had determined to punish for disorderly conduct, were continually requesting his intercession in their behalf. When differences fell out even among the nobility, he was not uncommonly employed to adjust them. He was besides, at that time, the only established clergyman in Edinburgh who taught the Reformed doctrines. There was a minister in the Canongate, and another in the neighbouring parish of St Cuthberts, but Knox was the minister of Edinburgh. He preached in the church of St Giles, which was capable of holding three thousand persons. To this numerous audience he held forth twice every Sunday, and thrice on other days during the week. He was regular too in his attendance at the meetings of the Synod and the General Assembly, and was frequently commissioned to travel through the country to disseminate gospel truth. In 1563, but not till then, a colleague was appointed to him.

Animated by a sincere desire to soften if possible our Reformer’s austere temper, Mary requested that he might be brought into her presence two days after he had delivered his sermon against idolatry. Knox had no objection whatever to this interview. To have it granted him at all would show his friends the importance attached to his character and office; and from the manner in which he determined to carry himself through it, he hoped to strengthen his reputation for bold independence of sentiment, and undeviating adherence to his principles. This was so far well; but Knox unfortunately mingled rudeness with his courage, and stubbornness with his consistency.

Mary opened the conversation by expressing her surprise that he should have formed so very unfavourable an opinion of herself; and requested to know what could have induced him to commence his calumnies against her so far back as 1559, when he published his book upon the “monstrous government of women.”[47 - This is apparently the first time Mary had ever expressed to Knox her sentiments regarding this pamphlet. He had been treated less ceremoniously by Elizabeth. But knowing the respect in which she was held by the Protestants, he saw it for his interest to attempt to pacify her, and wrote to her several conciliatory letters. Elizabeth put a stop to them, by desiring Cecil, to forward to Knox the following laconic epistle, which merits preservation as a literary curiosity: – “Mr Knox! Mr Knox! Mr Knox! there is neither male nor female: all are one in Christ, saith Paul. Blessed is the man who confides in the Lord! I need to wish you no more prudence than God’s grace; whereof God send you plenty. W. Cecil.” Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 494. Knox himself gives a somewhat different edition of this letter, (Hist. of the Reformation, p. 212.) Where Chalmers found the above, he does not mention.] Knox answered, that learned men in all ages considered their judgments free, and that, if these judgments sometimes differed from the common judgment of mankind, they were not to blame. He then ventured to compare his “First Blast of the Trumpet” to Plato’s work “On the Commonwealth,” observing, with much self-complacency, that both these books contained many new sentiments. He added, that what he had written was directed most especially against Mary – “that wicked Jezabel of England.” The Queen, perceiving that this was a mere subterfuge, said, “Ye speak of women in general.” Knox confessed that he did so, but again went the length of assuring her, though the assurance seems to involve a contradiction, that he had said nothing “intended to trouble her estate.”

Satisfied with this concession, Mary proceeded to ask, why he could not teach the people a new religion without exciting them to hold in contempt the authority of their Sovereign? Knox found it necessary to answer this question in a somewhat round-about manner. “If all the seed of Abraham,” said he, “should have been of the religion of Pharaoh, what religion should there have been in the world? Or if all men, in the days of the Roman Emperors, should have been of the religion of the Roman Emperors, what religion should have been on the face of the earth? Daniel and his fellows were subject to Nebuchadnezzar and unto Darius, and yet they would not be of their religion.” “Yea,” replied Mary promptly, “but none of these men raised the sword against their princes.” “Yet you cannot deny that they resisted,” said Knox, refining a little too much; “for those who obey not the commandment given them, do in some sort resist.” “But yet,” said the Queen, perceiving the quibble, “they resisted not with the sword.” The Reformer felt that he had been driven into a corner, and determined to get out of it at whatever cost. “God, Madam,” said he, “had not given unto them the power and the means.” “Think ye,” asked Mary, “that subjects having the power may resist their princes?” “If princes exceed their bounds, Madam,” said Knox, evidently departing from the point, “no doubt they may be resisted even by power.” He proceeded to fortify this opinion with arguments of no very loyal kind; and Mary, overcome by a rudeness and presumption she had been little accustomed to, was for some time silent. Nay, Randolph, in one of his letters, affirms that he “knocked so hastily upon her heart that he made her weep.” At length she said, “I perceive then that my subjects shall obey you, and not me, and will do what they please, and not what I command; and so must I be subject to them, and not they to me.” Knox answered, that a subjection unto God and his Church was the greatest dignity that flesh could enjoy upon the face of the earth, for it would raise it to everlasting glory. “But you are not the Church that I will nourish,” said Mary; “I will defend the Church of Rome, for it is, I think, the true Church of God.” Knox’s coarse and discourteous answer shows that he was alike ignorant of the delicacy with which, in this argument, he should have treated a lady, and of the respect a queen was entitled to demand. “Your will, Madam,” said he, “is no reason; neither doth your thought make the Roman harlot to be the true and immaculate spouse of Jesus Christ. Wonder not, Madam, that I call Rome a harlot, for that Church is altogether polluted with all kinds of spiritual fornication, both in doctrine and manners.” Whilst this speech must have deeply wounded the feelings of Mary, a sincere Catholic as she was, it cannot entitle the Reformer to any praise on the score of its bravery and independence. Knox knew that the whole country would, in a few days, be full of his conference with the Queen. By yielding to her, he had nothing to gain; and, as his reputation was his dearest possession, he hoped to increase it by an unmanly display of his determined zeal. Mary, perceiving what sort of a man she had to deal with, soon afterwards broke off the conversation.[48 - Knox’s History of the Reformation, p. 287, & seq. – Keith, p. 188. It is worth observing, that Knox is the only person who gives us any detailed account of these interviews, and he, of course, represents them in as favourable a light for himself as possible. “The report,” says Randolph, “that Knox hath talked with the Queen, maketh the Papists doubt what will become of the world.” – “I have been the more minute in the narrative of this curious conference,” says M’Crie, “because it affords the most satisfactory refutation of the charge that Knox treated Mary with rudeness and disrespect.” Different people have surely different modes of defining rudeness and respect.]

On the same day that the Queen gave Knox this audience, she made her first public entry into Edinburgh. She rode up the Canongate and High Street, to the Castle, where a banquet had been prepared for her. She was greeted, as she passed along, with every mark of respect and loyalty; and pains had been taken to give to the whole procession, as striking and splendid an air as possible. The Town had issued proclamations, requiring the citizens to appear in their best attire, and advising the young men to assume a uniform, that they might make “the convoy before the court more triumphant.” When Mary left the castle after dinner, on her way back, a pageant which had been prepared was exhibited on the Castle Hill. The Reformers could not allow this opportunity to pass, without reminding her that she was now in a country where their authority was paramount. The greater part of this pageant, represented the terrible vengeance of God upon idolaters. It was even, at one time, intended to have had a priest burned in effigy; but the Earl of Huntly declared, he would not allow so gross an insult to be offered to his sovereign.

Soon after paying this compliment to the City of Edinburgh, Mary determined upon making a progress through the country, that she and her subjects might become better acquainted with each other. She made this progress upon horseback, accompanied by a pretty numerous train. There appears at the time to have been only one wheeled carriage in Scotland. It was a chariot, (as it is called in the treasurer’s books), probably of a rude enough construction, which Margaret of England brought with her when she married James IV. Mary, no doubt, knew that it would have been rather adventurous to have attempted travelling on the Scotch roads of that day in so frail and uncertain a vehicle. It is not, however, to be supposed, that a Queen such as Mary, with her Lords and Ladies well-mounted around her, could pass through her native country without being the object of universal admiration, even without the aid of so wonderful a piece of mechanism as a coach or a chariot. Her first stage was to the palace at Linlithgow. Here she remained a day or two, and then proceeded to Stirling. On the night of her arrival there, she made a very narrow escape. As she lay in bed asleep, a candle, that was burning beside her, set fire to the curtains; and had the light and heat not speedily awakened her, when she immediately exerted her usual presence of mind, she might have been burned to death. The populace said at the time, that this was the fulfilment of a very old prophecy, that a Queen should be burned at Stirling. It was only the bed, however, not the Queen that was burned, so that the prophet must have made a slight mistake. On the Sunday she spent at Stirling, the Lord James, finding perhaps, that his former apparent defence of the mass, had hurt his reputation among the Reformers, corrected the error by behaving with singular impropriety in the Royal chapel. He was assisted by the Lord Justice General, the Earl of Argyle, in conjunction with whom he seems to have come to actual blows with the priests. This affair was considered good sport by many. “But there were others,” says Randolph, alluding probably to Mary, “that shed a tear or two.” “It was reserved,” Chalmer’s remarks, “for the Prime Minister and the Justice General, to make a riot in the house which had been dedicated to the service of God, and to obstruct the service in the Queen’s presence.”[49 - Keith supposes erroneously, that this disturbance took place in the Chapel at Holyrood. Randolph, his authority, though his expressions are equivocal, undoubtedly alludes to the Royal Chapel at Stirling. Keith, p. 189 and 190.]

Leaving Stirling, Mary spent a night at Lesly Castle, the seat of the Earl of Rothes, a Catholic nobleman. On the 16th of September she entered Perth. She was everywhere welcomed with much apparent satisfaction; but in the midst of their demonstrations of affection, her subjects always took care to remind her that they were Presbyterians, and that she was a Papist. In the very pious town of Perth, pageants greeted her arrival somewhat similar to those which had been exhibited to her on the Castle Hill at Edinburgh. Mary was not a little affected by observing this constant determination to wound her feelings. In riding through the streets of Perth, she became suddenly faint, and was carried from her horse to her lodging. Her acute sensibility often produced similar effects upon her health, although the cause was not understood by the unrefined multitude. With St Andrews, the seat of the Commendatorship of the Lord James, she seems to have been most pleased, and remained there several days. She returned to Edinburgh by the end of September, passing, on the way, through Falkland, where her father had died. Knox was much distressed at the manifestation of the popular feeling in favour of Mary during this journey. He consoles himself by saying, that she polluted the towns through which she passed with her idolatry; and in allusion to the accident at Stirling, remarks, “Fire followed her very commonly on that journey.”[50 - Knox, p. 292.]

It was, perhaps, to counteract, in some degree, the impression which Mary’s affability and beauty had made upon her subjects, that soon after her return to Edinburgh, a very singular proclamation was issued by the civil authorities of that town. It was couched in the following terms: – “October 2. 1561. On which day the Provost, Baillies, Council, and all the Deacons, perceiving the Priests, Monks, Friars, and others of the wicked rabble of the Anti-Christ the Pope, to resort to this town, contrary to the tenor of a previous proclamation; therefore ordain the said proclamation, charging all Monks, Friars, Priests, Nuns, Adulterers, Fornicators, and all such filthy persons, to remove themselves out of this town and bounds thereof, within twenty-four hours, under the pain of carting through the town, burning on the cheek, and perpetual banishment.”[51 - Keith, p 192.] The insult offered to the Sovereign of the realm, by thus attempting to confound the professors of the old religion with the most depraved characters in the country, was too gross to be allowed to pass unnoticed. Mary did not bring these bigoted magistrates to trial, – she did not even imprison them, but with much mildness, though with no less firmness, she ordered the Town-Council instantly to deprive the Provost and Baillies of the offices they held, and to elect other better qualified persons in their stead.[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.]

During the remainder of the year 1561, the only public affairs of consequence, were the appointment of the Lord James as the Queen’s Lieutenant on the Borders, where he proceeded to hold courts, and endeavoured, by great severity and many capital punishments, to reduce the turbulent districts to something like order; and the renewal on the part of Queen Elizabeth of the old dispute concerning the treaty of Edinburgh. Mary, having now had the benefit of advice from her Council, without directly refusing what Elizabeth asked, gave her, in pretty plain terms, to understand, that she could never think of signing away her hereditary title and interest to the Crown of England. “We know,” she says, in a letter she wrote to Elizabeth on the subject, “how near we are descended of the blood of England, and what devices have been attempted to make us, as it were, a stranger from it. We trust, being so nearly your cousin, you would be loth we should receive so manifest an injury, as entirely to be debarred from that title, which, in possibility, may fall to us.”

Most of Mary’s French friends had, by this time, returned home. Her uncle, the Marquis D’Elbeuf, however, remained all winter with her. In losing the Duke of Danville, Mary lost one of her warmest admirers; but it appears, that from his being already married, (though he could have obtained a divorce,) and from other considerations, Mary rejected his addresses. Many foreign princes were suing for the honour of her alliance, among whom were Don Carlos of Spain, the Archduke Charles of Austria, the King of Sweden, the Duke of Ferrara, and the Prince of Condé; but Mary did not yet see the necessity of an immediate marriage. Among her own subjects, there were two who ventured upon confessing their attachment, and nourishing some hopes that she might be brought to view it propitiously. These were the Earl of Arran, already mentioned, and Sir John Gordon, second son of the Earl of Huntly. The former of these Mary never liked; and though the latter far excelled him in accomplishments, both of body and mind, she does not seem to have given him encouragement either. Inspired by mutual jealousy, these noblemen, of course, detested each other; but Arran was the more factious and absurd. Having taken offence at some slights which he supposed had been offered him, he had retired to St Andrews, where he was believed, by those who knew his restless temperament, to be hatching sedition. Upon one occasion – a Sunday night in November – just before the Queen had retired to bed, a report was suddenly spread through the palace, that Arran had crossed the water at the head of a strong body of retainers, and was marching direct for Holyroodhouse, with the intention of carrying off the Queen to Dumbarton Castle, which was in the possession of his father, or to some other place of strength. This report, which gained credit, it was scarcely known how, excited the greatest alarm. Mary’s friends collected round her with as much speed as possible; the gates were closed, and the Lords remained in arms within the court all night. Arran did not make his appearance, and the panic gradually subsided, – though the nobles determined to keep guard every night for some time. This is the foundation of the assertion made by some writers, that Mary kept a perpetual body guard, which, unfortunately, she never did during the whole of her reign. The Duke of Chatelherault, who came to Court soon after, alleged, that the rumour which had gained credence against his son, was only a manœuvre of his enemies; and though his son’s conduct was, on all occasions, sufficiently outré, it is not unlikely that this allegation was true.

Another tumult, which soon afterwards occurred, shows how difficult it was, at this time, to preserve quietness and good order. It had been reported among the more dissolute nobles, that the daughter of a respectable merchant in Edinburgh, was the chere amie of the Earl of Arran. Bothwell, always at home in any affair of this kind, undertook to introduce the Marquis D’Elbeuf to the lady; Lord John, brother of the Commendator of St Andrews, was also of the party. They went to her house the first night in masks, and were admitted, and courteously entertained. Returning next evening, they were disappointed to find, that the object of their admiration refused to receive their visits any longer. They proceeded, therefore, to break open the doors, and to create much disturbance in the house and neighbourhood. Next day the Queen was informed of their disorderly conduct, and she rebuked them sharply. But Bothwell and the Lord John, animated partly by their dislike to the house of Hamilton, and partly by a turbulent spirit of contradiction, declared they would repeat their visit the very next night in despite of either friend or foe. Their intentions being understood, the servants of the Duke of Chatelherault and Arran thought themselves called upon to defend a lady whom their masters patronized. They assembled accordingly with jack and spear in the streets, determined to oppose force to force. Bothwell wished for nothing else, and collected his friends about him in his own lodgings. The opposite party, however, increased much more rapidly than his, and began to collect in a threatening manner before his house. The magistrates saw the necessity of interfering; the alarm-bell was rung, and despatches were sent off to Holyrood, to know what course was to be taken. The Earls of Argyle and Huntly, together with the Lord James, joined the civic authorities, and, proceeding out to the mob, made proclamation, that all men should instantly depart on pain of death. This had the desired effect; the streets gradually became quiet, and Bothwell gave up his wild scheme. Mary, next day, ordered both the Duke of Chatelherault and the Earl of Bothwell to appear before her. The first came accompanied by a crowd of Protestants, and the latter with an equal number of Catholics. But the Queen was not to be over-awed, and having investigated the matter, Bothwell was banished from Court for ten days.[53 - Randolph in Keith, p. 210.]

This was only the prelude to a still more serious difference, which took place between these untamed and irascible nobles. The Earl of Arran appeared before the Queen, and declared that a powerful conspiracy had been formed against the life of the Lord James, upon whom the title of Earl of Mar, as preliminary to that of Murray, had recently been conferred. This conspiracy, he said, had originated with himself and his father, who were beginning to tremble, lest the newly created Earl’s influence with the Queen, might induce her to set aside the Hamilton succession, in favour of her illegitimate brother. That the Earl of Mar had really proposed some such arrangement, seems to be established on good authority.[54 - Goodall, vol. i. p. 199, et seq.] The Earl of Huntly, together with Mar’s old enemy, Bothwell, had been induced by the Hamiltons to join in this plot. The intention was, to shoot the Earl of Mar when hunting with the Queen, to obtain for the Hamiltons his authority in the government, and to give the Catholic party greater weight in the state. Huntly’s eldest son, the Lord Gordon, was also implicated in Arran’s confession. A few days before the whole of these plans were to be carried into execution, the weak and vacillating Arran, according to his own declaration, had been seized with remorse of conscience; and, actuated by his ancient friendship for Mar, and his love for the Queen, determined on disclosing every thing.

Historians seem to have been puzzled, what degree of dependence they should place upon the truth of this strange story, told by one who was already half crazed, and soon afterwards altogether insane. That there is good reason, however, for giving credit to his assertions, is evident, from the manner in which all contemporary writers speak, and the fact, that the Queen sent both him and Bothwell to prison. When the affair was further investigated, it was found to involve so many of the first nobility of the land, and among others, Arran’s own father, Chaltelherault, whom he could never be expected publicly to accuse, that Mary resolved not to push matters to extremity against any one. She ordered the Duke of Chatelherault, however, to deliver up the Castle of Dumbarton; and, at the Earl of Mar’s instigation, she kept Bothwell a prisoner, first in the Castle of St Andrews, and afterwards in that of Edinburgh, until he made his escape, and left the country for upwards of two years. It is remarkable, that this conspiracy should not have been hitherto dwelt upon at greater length, tending as it does to develope the secret motives by which the Earl of Mar was actuated in his subsequent feuds with the Earl of Huntly.[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.] It is worth recollecting too, though the fact has not been previously noticed, that this was the first occasion on which Bothwell aimed at making himself master of the Queen’s person. The design, though unsuccessful, shows the spirit which long continued to actuate him. Had Mary fallen into his hands at this period, it is not likely that she would ever have had it in her power to marry Darnley, and the whole complexion of her fate might have been changed.

In February 1562, Mary gave a series of splendid entertainments, on the occasion of the marriage of her favourite brother, James. He was then in the thirty-first year of his age, and chose for his wife Lady Agnes Keith, eldest daughter of the Earl of Marschal. The marriage was solemnized in the church of St Giles; and Knox took advantage of the occasion, to offer the Lord James a wholesome, but somewhat curiously expressed advice; “for,” said the preacher to him, “unto this day has the kirk of God received comfort by you, and by your labours; in the which, if hereafter you shall be found fainter than you were before, it will be said that your wife has changed your nature.” Knox and his friends were subsequently much scandalized by “the greatness of the banquetting, and the vanity thereof,” which characterized the honeymoon. The issue of this marriage was three daughters, two of whom married Scotch noblemen, and the third died young.[56 - Knox, p. 302. – Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 425.]

In August 1562, Mary commenced the progress into the North, which, in so far as some of her principal nobility were concerned, was attended with such very important consequences.

CHAPTER IX.

MARY’S EXPEDITION TO THE NORTH

The Lord James, now Earl of Mar, had for some time felt, that so long as he was regarded with suspicion by the Hamiltons, and with ill-concealed hatred by the Earl of Huntly and the Gordons, his power could not be so stable, nor his influence so extensive, as he desired. If it is true that he had already proposed to Mary to set aside the succession of the Earl of Arran, it is equally true that she had refused his request. Foiled, therefore, in this, his more ambitious aim, he saw the necessity of limiting, in the meantime, to more moderate bounds, his views of personal preferment. With regard to the Hamiltons, he had succeeded in securing their banishment from court, and in making them objects of suspicion and dislike to the Queen. There was not indeed sufficient talent in the family ever to have made it formidable to him, had it not been that it was of the blood royal. Though not possessing this advantage, the Gordons were always looked upon by Mar as more dangerous rivals. He had long nursed a secret desire, at least to weaken, if not to crush altogether, the power of Huntly. In getting himself created Earl of Mar, he had made one step towards his object. The lands which went along with this title were part of the royal demesnes; but had for some time been held in fee by the Earls of Huntly. Her brother had prevailed upon Mary to recall them in his favour, and he was thus able to set himself down in the very heart of a country, which had hitherto acknowledged no master who did not belong to the house of Gordon. Huntly felt this encroachment bitterly; and it makes it the more probable, that he had secretly joined with Arran in his plot upon Mar; at any rate Mar gave him full credit for having done so. Their mutual animosity being thus exasperated, to the highest pitch, Huntly left the Court, and the Prime Minister waited anxiously for the first opportunity that might occur, to humble effectually the great leader of the Catholics.

In prosecution of his purpose, Mar now obtained a grant under the Privy Seal of the earldom of Murray. A grant under the Privy Seal constituted only an inchoate, not a complete title. To ratify the grant and make it legal, it was necessary to have the Great Seal also affixed to it. The Great Seal, however, was in the custody of Huntly, as Lord Chancellor; and as Mar well knew that the grant of this second earldom infringed upon Huntly’s rights even more than the former, he saw the propriety of keeping it secret for some time. The earldom of Murray, which, with its lands and appurtenances, was bestowed upon Huntly in 1549, for his services in the war with England, had been again recalled by the Crown in 1554, when Huntly fell into the displeasure of the Queen-Regent, in consequence of having refused to punish with fire and sword some Highland rebels. But in 1559, the title and lands were restored, not as a free grant, but as a lease during five years, to Huntly, his wife and heirs, on the condition of a yearly payment of 2500 merks Scots. Till 1564, therefore, Huntly was entitled to consider himself master of all the lands and revenues of this earldom. But in 1561, the title and lands were privately conferred upon the Earl of Mar. It is true, that he might have applied thus early only to prevent himself from being anticipated, and might not have intended to encroach on Huntly’s rights before the legal period of his enjoying them had expired. The advantage, however, he so eagerly took of an incident that occurred in the month of June 1562, proves that Mar had never any intention to keep his title to the earldom of Murray locked up for three years.[57 - Chalmers, vol. i. p. 78.; vol. ii. p. 293, et seq.; and p. 426, et seq.]

The father of James, Lord Ogilvy, had married one of the Earl of Huntly’s sisters, who gave her some lands in liferent as her dowry. Upon her husband’s death, considerations induced her to surrender the liferent to her brother, and the Earl then gave it to his son, Sir John Gordon. But Lord Ogilvy was displeased with his mother’s conduct, and questioned its legality. The matter, however, was decided against him, though not before it had occasioned much bad blood between him and Sir John Gordon. These two noblemen unfortunately met on the streets of Edinburgh; and though Sir John had married Ogilvy’s sister, all ties of relationship were disregarded, and an affray took place, in which both were assisted by their respective servants. It does not exactly appear who was the aggressor in this scuffle, but, from the circumstances which led to it, the probability is, that it was Ogilvy. Both noblemen were severely wounded; and the magistrates, enraged at their breach of the peace, committed them to prison.[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.] Mary with her Court was at Stirling, but the Earl of Mar obtained permission to depart for Edinburgh, to examine into the whole affair. The son of the Earl of Huntly was now within his power, and he saw the advantages which might be made to accrue to himself in consequence. After examination, he ordered the Lord Ogilvy and his retainers to be set at liberty, but Sir John Gordon he sent to the common gaol. Sir John, not liking to trust himself in such hands, made his escape, after remaining in prison for about a month, and proceeded to his father’s house in the North to recite to him his grievances.[59 - Chalmers, vol. i. p. 80.; and vol. ii. p. 298.]

Such being the state of feeling subsisting between the Queen’s prime minister and these great Northern chieftains, it can scarcely be allowed that Robertson expresses himself correctly when he says, “The Queen happened to set out on a progress into the northern parts of the kingdom.” Her motions were at this time entirely regulated by the Earl of Mar, who, seeing the contempt which had been offered to her authority by the flight of his son, felt satisfied that Mary could not pass through the extensive territories of Huntly, without either giving or receiving some additional cause of offence, which would in all probability lead to consequences favourable to Mar’s ambition. Unless this hypothesis be adopted, no rational cause can be assigned why the Queen should have chosen this particular season for her visit to the North. From the recent suspicion which had attached to the Earl of Huntly, as one of Arran’s colleagues in a conspiracy against her favourite minister, and the still more recent conduct of his son Sir John Gordon, she certainly could have no intention to pay that family the compliment of honouring them with her royal presence as a guest. North of Aberdeen, however, nearly the whole country was subservient to Huntly; and if Mary did not pass through it as a friend, she must as an enemy. This was the consideration that prompted the Earl of Mar to fix this year for the expedition. It was owing to negociations with Elizabeth, concerning a personal interview between the two Queens, that Mary was unable to set out till towards the middle of August.

The Queen left Edinburgh on horseback, as usual, attended by a very considerable train. Among others, four members of her Privy Council went with her, – the Earls of Argyle, Morton, Marschall, and Mar, – the three first of whom had no particular liking for Huntly, and were, besides, entirely under the direction of the last. Randolph also attended the Queen in this journey, and furnishes some details concerning it. On the 18th of August, 1562, she left Stirling; and, after a disagreeable and fatiguing journey, arrived at Old Aberdeen on the 27th. Here she remained for several days, and all the nobility in these parts came to pay their homage to her. Among the rest were the Earl and Countess of Huntly, who entreated her to honour them with a visit at Huntly Castle, informing her that they had endeavoured to make suitable preparations for her entertainment. Mary, at Mar’s instigation of course, (for, as far as her own feelings were concerned, she must have looked with favour upon the first Catholic Peer of the realm), received them coldly. This was but a poor return for Huntly’s long tried fidelity to herself and family; for, whatever quarrels he may have had with the nobility, he had always preserved inviolate his respect for the royal prerogative. His son, Sir John Gordon, also came to Aberdeen, and surrendered himself to the Queen, to be dealt with as her justice might direct. He was neither tried nor taken into custody; but, with more refined policy, he was ordered by Mar, and the rest of the Queen’s Council, to proceed voluntarily to Stirling Castle, and there deliver himself, as a prisoner, to the keeper, Lord Erskine, Mar’s uncle. It was, no doubt, foreseen that this order, so disproportioned in its severity to the offence which occasioned it, would not be complied with, nor was it wished that it should. Guided by similar advice, Mary refused to visit the residence of the Earl of Huntly, – a refusal which was pathetically lamented by Randolph, as it was “within three miles of her way, and the fairest house in this country.” We learn from the same authority, that there was such a scarcity of accommodation, in Old Aberdeen, that Randolph, and Maitland the secretary, who had recently returned from England, were obliged to sleep together in the same bed. This is, perhaps, rendered the less remarkable, when we are informed that there were, at the University, only fifteen or sixteen scholars.

On the 1st of September, Mary left Aberdeen for Inverness; but, in the interval, the Earl of Mar, perceiving that there might be some occasion for their services, had collected a pretty strong body of men, who marched forward with the Queen and her train. In journeying northwards, she travelled by Rothiemay, Grange, Balvenie, and Elgin, passing very near the Earl of Huntly’s castle. No entreaty would induce her to enter it; but she permitted the Earl of Argyle and Randolph to partake of its hospitality for two days. “The Earl of Huntly’s house,” says Randolph, “is the best furnished that I have seen in this country. His cheer is marvellous great; his mind then, such, as it appeared to us, as ought to be, in any subject, to his sovereign.” On the 8th of September, Mary went from Elgin to Tarnaway, the baronial residence of the earldom of Murray, and at that time in possession of a tenant of the Earl of Huntly. Information being there received that Sir John Gordon’s friends and vassals, exasperated at the over-degree of rigour with which he was treated, were assembling in arms; and that Sir John, instead of going to Stirling, had joined the rebels, a proclamation was issued, charging him to surrender, by way of forfeit, into the Queen’s hands, his houses and fortresses of Findlater and Auchindoune. This proclamation was expressed with a bitterness which must only have enraged the discontents the more. It required the surrender of these strongholds, with the avowed intention of breaking the power of the rebels, and in consideration of her Majesty having heard “the many grievous complaints of the poor people of this country, hearing them to be herreit (robbed) and oppressed by him and his accomplices, in times by-past; and fearing the like, or worse, should be done in time coming.” The same proclamation described Sir John Gordon’s wife as “Lady Findlater, his pretended spouse.”[60 - Keith, p. 225.]

Fearing that even all this might not be enough to induce Huntly to take such steps as might be plausibly construed into treason, Mar now, for the first time, produced his title to the Earldom of Murray, and assumed the name. The only meeting of council held north of Aberdeen was at Tarnaway, and at the first council after the Queen had returned to Aberdeen, we find Mar’s name changed to that of Murray. Robertson, who has followed Buchanan’s, or in other words Murray’s own account of the transactions in the North, in referring Mar’s assumption of the Earldom of Murray to a later date, forgets that it must have been sanctioned by Mary and her Council; and that the only opportunity for doing so, in the interval of their departure from, and return to Aberdeen, was at Tarnaway.[61 - Keith, p. 226.]

This new insult upon himself and family was, as Murray expected, deeply felt by the Earl of Huntly. He began to suspect that it was intended to ruin him; and in this extremity, with evident reluctance, he prepared to defend himself. Mary, meanwhile, marched forward to Inverness. “On her arrival,” says Robertson, “the commanding officer in the Castle, by Huntly’s orders, shut the gates against her.” The gates were shut, but certainly not by Huntly’s orders; for as soon as he heard that the Castle had been summoned, he sent his express commands to the governor (who had acted upon his own responsibility) to surrender it. These commands, however, came too late; the Castle had been taken by storm, and the governor put to death. What right the Earl of Murray, or even the Queen herself, had to demand the surrender of the castle, which belonged hereditarily to Lord George Gordon, the Earl of Huntly’s eldest son, does not appear. As Chalmers remarks, the whole proceeding seems to have been illegal and unwarrantable. Huntly, who was on his way to Inverness, to attempt an arrangement of these disputes, by a personal interview with the Queen, when he heard of the execution of the governor, returned to his castle.[62 - Chalmers, vol. i. p. 84, and vol. ii. p. 302.]

The Gordons were now fairly roused; and, collecting their followers, they determined to act resolutely, but not as aggressors. Mary was made to believe that she was in the midst of a hostile country; and though there was, in reality no intention to attack her, every means was taken to inspire her with fear, and to convince her of the treacherous designs of the Earl of Huntly. But Mary, had a courageous spirit, when it was necessary to exert it. “In all those garbrilles,” says Randolph, “I never saw the Queen moved, – never dismayed; nor never thought I that stomach to be in her that I find. She repented nothing, but when the Lords and others at Inverness came in the morning from the watch; that she was not a man, to know what life it was to lie all night in the fields, or to walk upon the causeway with a jack and knapsack, a Glasgow buckler and a broadsword.”

On the 15th of September, the Queen returned southwards. She had with her about two thousand men, and as she advanced, their number increased to 3000. She marched by Kilravock and Tarnaway, to Spynie Castle. Thence, she proceeded through the country of the Gordons, crossing the Spey at Fochabers, and going by the way of Cullen and Banff. Throughout the whole course of this march, Murray took care to make her believe that she was in danger of being attacked every moment. If there had been any enemy to fight with, “what desperate blows,” says Randolph, “would not have been given, when every man should have fought in the sight of so noble a Queen, and so many fair ladies!” The only incidents which seem to have occurred, were summonses to surrender, given by sound of trumpet at Findlater House, and at Deckford, mansions of Sir John Gordon. The keepers of both refused; but they were not acting upon their master’s authority. Having slept a night at the Laird of Banff’s house, Mary returned, on the 22d of September, to Aberdeen. Her entry into the New Town, was celebrated by the inhabitants with every demonstration of respect. Spectacles, plays, and interludes were devised; a richly wrought silver cup, with 500 crowns in it, was presented to her; and wine, coals, and wax, were sent in great abundance to her lodgings.

But the Earl of Murray, was not yet satisfied that he had humbled the Gordons enough. It was true, that the lands of Sir John had been forfeited, – that the castle of Lord George had been captured, – and that the title and estates of the earldom of Murray had been wrested from Huntly. But Huntly’s power still remained nearly as great as ever; and it seemed doubtful whether Murray would ever be able to seat himself quietly in his new possessions, situated as they were in the very heart of the Earl’s domains. The privy council were therefore prevailed upon to come to the resolution that the Earl of Huntly, in the language of Randolph, “shall either submit himself, and deliver his disobedient son John, or utterly to use all force against him, for the subversion of his house for ever.” To enforce this determination, Murray levied soldiers, and sent into Lothian and Fife for officers in whom he could place confidence, particularly Lindsay and Grange. With what show of reason the unfortunate Huntly could be subjected to so severe a fate, it is difficult to say. He had come to offer his obedience and hospitality to the Queen, on her first arrival at Aberdeen; – he remained perfectly quiet during her journey through that part of the country which was subject to him; – he sent to her, after she returned to Aberdeen, the keys of the Houses of Findlater and Deckford, which she had summoned unsuccessfully on her march from Cullen to Banff; – and he delivered to her, out of his own castle, a field-piece which the Regent Arran had long ago given to him, and which Mary now demanded. He added, that “not only that, which was her own, but also his body and goods, were at her Grace’s commands.”[63 - Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 306.] His wife, the Countess of Huntly, led Captain Hay, the person sent for the cannon, into the chapel at her castle, and placing herself at the altar, said to him, – “Good friend, you see here the envy that is borne unto my husband. Would he have forsaken God and his religion as those that are now about the Queen’s grace, and have the whole guiding of her, have done, my husband had never been put at as now he is. God, and He that is upon this holy altar, whom I believe in, will, I am sure, preserve, and let our true meaning hearts be known; and as I have said unto you, so, I pray you, let it be said unto your mistress. My husband was ever obedient unto her, and so will die her faithful subject.”[64 - Chalmers, vol. i. p. 90.]

That Mary should have given her sanction to these iniquitous proceedings, can only be accounted for by supposing, what was in truth the case, that she was kept in ignorance of every thing tending to exculpate Huntly, whilst various means were invented to inspire her with a belief, that he had conceived, and was intent upon executing a diabolical plot against herself and government. It was given out, that his object was to seize upon the Queen’s person, – to marry her by force to his son Sir John Gordon, – and to cut off Murray, Morton, and Maitland, his principal enemies.[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.] Influenced by these misrepresentations, which would have been smiled at in later times, but which, in those days, were taken more seriously, the Queen put the fate of Huntly into the hands of Murray. Soon after her return to Aberdeen, an expedition was secretly prepared against Huntly’s castle. If resistance was offered, the troops sent for the purpose were to take it by force, and if admitted without opposition, they were to bring Huntly, a prisoner to Aberdeen. Intimation, however, of this enterprise and its object was conveyed to the Earl, and he contrived to baffle its success. His wife received the party with all hospitality; threw open her doors, and entreated that they would examine the whole premises, to ascertain whether they afforded any ground of suspicion. But Huntly himself, took care to be out of the way, having retired to Badenoch.[66 - Chalmers, vol. i. p. 93, and vol. ii. p. 306.]

Thus foiled again, Murray, on the 15th of October, called a Privy Council, at which he got it declared, that unless Huntly appeared on the following day before her Majesty, “to answer to such things as are to lay to his charge,” he should be put to the horn for his contempt of her authority, and “his houses, strengths, and friends, taken from him.”[67 - Keith, p. 226.] However willing he might have been to have ventured thus into the lion’s den, Huntly could not possibly have appeared within the time appointed. On the 17th of October, he was therefore denounced a rebel in terms of the previous proclamation, and his lands and titles declared forfeited.[68 - Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 307.] Even yet, however, Huntly acted with forbearance. He sent his Countess to Aberdeen on the 20th, who requested admission to the Queen’s presence, that she might make manifest her husband’s innocence. So far from obtaining an audience, this lady, who was respected and loved over the whole country, was not allowed to come within two miles of the Court, and she returned home with a heavy heart. As a last proof of his fidelity, Huntly sent a messenger to Aberdeen, offering to enter into ward till his cause might be tried by the whole nobility. Even this offer was rejected; and, goaded into madness, the unfortunate Earl at length collected his followers round him, and, raising the standard of rebellion, not against the Queen, but against Murray, advanced suddenly upon Aberdeen.