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

12

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

13

Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 176.

14

Melville, p. 192.

15

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

16

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

17

Keith – Preface, p. viii.

18

Keith, p. 364.

19

Keith, p. 151. – Laing, vol. ii. p. 76. – Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 268. – Whittaker, in endeavouring to prove (vol. ii. p. 322) that the Catholic Ecclesiastical Courts had never been deprived of their jurisdiction, and that, consequently, there was no restoration of power to the Archbishop of St Andrews, evidently takes an erroneous view of this matter. In direct opposition to such a view, Knox, or his continuator, has the following account of the transaction: – “At the same time, the Bishop of St Andrews, by means of the Earl of Bothwell, procured a writing from the Queen’s Majesty, to be obeyed within the Diocess of his Jurisdiction, in all such causes as before, in time of Popery, were used in the Consistory, and, therefore, to discharge the new Commissioners; and for the same purpose, came to Edinburgh in January, having a company of one hundred horses, or more, intending to take possession according to his gift lately obtained. The Provost being advertised thereof by the Earl of Murray, they sent to the Bishop three or four of the Council, desiring him to desist from the said matter, for fear of trouble and sedition that might rise thereupon; whereby he was persuaded to desist at that time.” – Knox, p. 403. This account is not quite correct, in so far as the Earl of Murray alone, unsupported by Mary’s authority, is described as having diverted the Archbishop from his purpose.

20

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

21

Keith, Preface p. viii.

22

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

23

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 76. – et seq.

24

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

25

Keith, p. 364. – Anderson, vol. ii. p. 67. – Goodall, vol. ii. p. 244. – Chalmers, vol. i. p. 203. – vol. ii. p. 180, and 271. – Laing, vol. i. p. 30. – and vol. ii. p. 17. – Whittaker, vol. iii. p. 258, and 283. – Arnot’s History of Edinburgh, p. 237. Whittaker has made several mistakes regarding the House of the Kirk-of-Field. He describes it as much larger than it really was; and, misled by the appearance of a gun-port still remaining in one part of the old wall, and which Arnot supposed had been the postern-door in the gavel of the house, he fixes its situation at too great a distance from the College, and too near the Infirmary. Sir Walter Scott, in his “Tales of a Grandfather,” (vol. iii. p. 187.) has oddly enough fallen into the error of describing the Kirk-of-Field, as standing “just without the walls of the city.”

26

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

27

Idem.

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

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

32

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

33

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

34

Anderson, vol. ii. p. 183.

35

Keith, Preface, p. viii.

36

Anderson, vol. ii. p. 179.