Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

much secret spleen, dissatisfaction and alienation. against her endangered husband, as she had previously exhibited; altho, if she were sincerely going to effect a reconciliation, very different language and sentiments would have flowed from her pen, and would have been intentionally expressed. Nothing however of this character is visible in it;156 and its absence forbids us to believe, that what on the 20th of January had no place in her heart, could by any human means be there on the 21st, when she set off for Glasgow, to act the part of cordiality to her husband, in order to induce him to leave his father

preface, p. viii. It is dated 20 Jan. 1567, only the day before she began her journey to fetch the king. It therefore exhibits to us her feelings towards him only the day before she went to him. It is addressed to her ambassador, the archbishop, at Paris. In the first part, she informs him of the reports spread by two of her servants, who contradicted each other. One was, that the king was contriving with some nobles to have his son crowned, and to take the government; an important revelation to us of one of the fears that was in the consideration of Mary and her adherents. The other rumor was, that the king was to be arrested; that this had been communicated to him, and that he had desired further inquiries to be made about it, and that he could not bear some noblemen that were attending the queen's court. Both these subjects shew us important reasons for Mary and her party having the king within their power at Edinburgh. It is in the latter part of the letter that she adds her feelings, as mentioned in the next note. Keith, viii.

156 As this is a matter of common judgment, every reader must form his own opinion on the force of the queen's phrases. She says,' And for the king our husband, God knows always our part towards him; and his behaviour and thankfulness to us is semblablement well known to God and the world; specially our own indifferent subjects see it; and in their heart we doubt not, condemn the same. Always we perceive him occupied, and busy enough to have inquisition of our doings, which, God willing, shall ay be such as none shall have occasion to be offended with them, or to report of us any ways but honorably, however he, his father, and their fautors speak; who, we know, want no good will to make us have ado, if their power were equivalent to their minds. But God moderates their forces well enough, and takes the means of execution of their pretences from them. For as we believe, they shall find none, or very few approvers of their counsels and devises imagined to our displeasure or misliking.' Keith, pref. 8. I cannot dispossess my mind of the idea that this is penned exactly as a person would write, who, from knowing that a condemnable deed was about to be executed,

XXII

BOOK

II.

and his friends at that city, to come under the protection and within the power of herself, and of all these governing men who had bound themselves to resist, and the chief of whom were plotting to destroy, him. It seems to the unprejudiced eye, that the public appearance of reconcilement, which she now assumed, could but be artificial; and if artificial, it had a secret purpose. It was still more incontestibly theatrical on the part of the lords who joined her in it: and their fatal object in the hypocrisy soon became manifest. How far, with the feelings indicated in her letter, Mary was their dupe or their coadjutor, we would rather leave others to determine, than pronounce dictatorially ourselves.

These nobles appear to have not only combined against the king, but to have bound themselves by a written obligation to destroy him, one way or

in which the public tongue would implicate her, sought to prevent reproach at the French court, and in her ambassador's mind, by these anticipating assurances, that, tho the king had deserved severity from her, and was blaming and inquiring into her doings, they should be always such as should not be discreditable to her. If she had not known what was in contemplation, and had not thought that what was to take place would or could be so managed, as not to be imputed to her, she would, in my opinion, never have written these passages. But she takes care to create an impression as far as she can, that the king and his father were contriving something against her. They only, she says, wanted power equal to their wishes. Now if she had felt and written this with any belief or sincerity, would she the next day have gone to Glasgow to fetch the king out of his obscurity and unpopularity there, in order to give him influence and power at Edinburgh, by affecting a perfect reconciliation with him, and by caressing and treating him as an affectionate wife and queen? Her admitted conduct, and this undeniable letter, printed by her own advocate, appear to me to be irreconcileable, but on the melancholy supposition that she was now acting her allotted and chosen part; that of bringing the king into the toil of the conspirators, and of inducing the public to exculpate her from any share of the transaction, by the previous display of apparent amity and forgiving regard. I wish not to press any one to a harsh opinion on this subject, but feel that I ought not to conceal the unbiassed tendency of my own.

XXII.

another. 157 This deed of iniquity was devised by sir CHAP. James Balfour, in the preceding November, the time when Mary went to Craigmillar; 158 and from its

[ocr errors]

157 That there was such a bond, we learn from several authorities, and among these from two concerned in the crime. A. Douglas says, that the same was executed at the command of such of the nobility as had subscribed his bond for that effect.' Rob. Hist. From the Paper Office Bund. P. 20. T. 29. Chalmers quotes, that upon the prevalence of the earl of Lennox, and the threats of procuring from sir James Balfour at Paris, the deed of contract for the murder of Darnley, it was resolved by Elizabeth in April 1580 to send Robert Bowes into Scotland.' 2 Chalm. 301. But the fullest account of it is given by Ormiston, one of the murderers, in his confession before his execution for the deed, on 13 Dec 1573: He stated to the attending minister, that on his telling Bothwell that every body suspected him, the earl answered, I shall let you see something that I had for me.' Ormiston adds; who let me see a contract subscribed by four or five hand-writings, which he affirmed to me was the subscription of the earl of Huntley, Argyle, the secretary Maitland, and sir James Balfour; and alleged that many more promised, who would assist him if he were put at; and therefore read the said contract.' Orm. Conf. and Arnott's Crim. Trials, app. 383-8. The actual contents of this paper we know only from the confession of Ormiston, who thus from his memory described it; which as I remember contained these words in effect: That for so mickle it was thought expedient and most profitable for the commonwealth by the whole nobility and lords under subscribed, that such a young fool and proud tyrant should not reign nor bear rule over them. And that for divers causes therefore, that they all had concluded that he should be put off by one way or other; and whosoever should take the deed in hand, or do it, they should defend and fortify it as themselves; for it should by every one of them be reckoned an holden done by themselves.' ib.

158 This time is calculated from his next sentence, Which writing, as the said earl shewed unto me, was devised by sir James Balfour, subscribed by them at one quarter of a year before the deed was done.' ib. Three months from February 1567 takes up back to November 1566. Sir James Balfour in his letter to Mary, of 30 January 1580, seems to allude to this bond in this passage, speaking of Morton's being accused of the murder, wherethro the said earl takes the greater boldness to deny all things promised by him to Bothwell in that matter, except so far as the bond, whereof I did send the copy to your majesty, does testify.' 2 Laing, 315. M. Laing refers this to the after bond given on Bothwell's marriage. Paris stated, that Bothwell told him, I have the signature of all those I have named,' having named Argyle, Huntley, Morton, Ruthven, and Lyndsay. Hepburn, in his confession, said, he had thought 'no man durst have said it was evil done, seeing the hand-writing, and acknowleging the queen's mind thereto.' The letter of Mary's commissioners, on 1 Dec. 1568, also refers to it, calling her accusers writers with their own hands of that devilish band.' 2 Good. 213.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

BOOK contents we may infer that, altho the king's murder was determined, the mode of accomplishing it had not been concluded.

Mary began her change of conduct, whatever were her motives to produce it, in the third week of January 1567. It was on the 23d of this month that sir William Drury wrote from Berwick, that he had heard that the queen intended to go and bring the king away from Glasgow, as soon as he could bear the cold air.' 150 No declaration is here given of any affectionate reconciliation, but simply of her design. to remove him. Accompanied by Bothwell and Huntley, she went on the 21 st January for that purpose to Glasgow." She reached this town on Thursday the 23d January, when Bothwell returned to Edinburgh; 16 the next day she conversed with her hus

160

159 Sir Will. Drury, on 23 Jan. 1567, thus wrote to Cecil: 'My lord Darnley lieth sick at Glasgow of the small-pox, which disease beginneth to spread thence. Unto whom I hear the Q. intendeth to go and bring him away as soon as he can bear the cold air.' 2 Chal.548. It is justice to her to add the reason for her journey, which her great advocate and agent, Leslie, the bishop of Ross, adduced: Mary hearing her husband was repentant, and desired her presence, hasted with such speed as she conveniently might, to visit him at Glasgow.' Chalm. 2. p. 551.

160 This date is thus given in that contemporary journal, which Anderson printed from a copy marked with lord Burghley's hand in the British Museum, Cal. B. 9. It has been called Murray's Diary. Jan. 21, 1566 (1567.) The queen took her journey towards Glasgow, and was accompanied with the earls of Huntley and Bothwell to the Kalendar, my lord Levistoun's place.' Anderson, p. 269. Her friends have argued that she did not then leave Edinburgh, because some privy seal grants were dated at Edinburgh on the 22d. Goodall, 1. p. 122. But Mr. Laing has satisfactorily shewn, that the dates of these official documents were not always on the day of the actual signature; so that no reliance can be placed only on them, either to falsify any other authority, or to support a charge of forgery.

16123. The queen came to Glasgow, and on the road met sir Tho. Crawford from the earl of Lennox and sir James Hamilton, with the rest mentioned in her letter. Earl Huntley and Bothwell returned that night to Edinburgh, and Bothwell lay in the town.' Min. Jour. And. 271.

XXII.

band,102 and on Monday the 27th began her journey CHAP. with him from Glasgow towards the capital. 163 Bothwell seems in this interval to have gone to his estate at Lyddisdale, but returned immediately from it.16 After resting two days at Linlithgow,165 on 30th or 31st January she reached and entered Edinburgh with the king." It was during her residence at Glasgow that those celebrated letters were written, about which such abundant, and, on the side of her advocates such a fierce, controversy has been, more zealously than efficaciously, created. 167

166

162 Murray's Diary states these particulars: 24th. The queen remained at Glasgow; like as she did the 25th and 26th, and had the conference with the king whereof she writes; and in this time wrote her bill and other letters to Bothwell.' ib. 272.

163 The Diary marked these stages: 27th. The queen, conformable to her commission, as she writes, brought the king from Glasgow to the Calendar towards Edinburgh. Jan. 28th. The queen brought the king to Linlithgow, and there remained all morn, while she got word of my lord Bothwell, his returning towards Edinburgh, by Hob Ormiston, one of the murderers.' Min. Jour. ib. 272.

164 Under 28th January, the Diary adds; The same day the earl Bothwell came back from Lyddisdale towards Edinburgh.' ib. Lyddisdale was one of Bothwell's possessions.

165 29th. She remained all day in Linlithgow with the king, and wrote from thence to Bothwell.' ib.

16630th. The queen brought the king to Edinburgh, and put him in his lodgings where he ended; and Bothwell keeping tryist, met her upon the way.' ib. Birrel, in his Diary, makes the arrival a day later. He says, p. 8, 'The king and queen came to Edinburgh out of Glasgow, the king being carried in a chariot, on the last of January, and took his lodging in the Kirk-o-field.' 1 Chalm. 315.

167 As I have resolved not to build this history from any doubtful or disputed materials, I have not used these letters in the construction of my narrative; but it may be right to add, that after attentively considering all that the queen's zealous advocates have argued, rather than judged in their favor, I am not induced to depart from the concurring opinions of Mr. Hume, Dr. Robertson, lord Hailes, and Malcolm Laing, nor from the much earlier conviction of the statesmen and general public, both in Scotland and England, at the time of their production, that they were the genuine compositions of this royal lady: and if genuine, they not only prove her criminal intimacy with Bothwell, but they also shew that she went to cajole him to Edinburgh; and they contain some allusions which incline the mind to believe that she was not ignorant that Bothwell and Maitland were concerting or preparing for the violent removal of her husband.

« VorigeDoorgaan »