Life of Mary Queen of Scots, Volume 2 (of 2). Bell Henry Glassford
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
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.
37
Ibid. vol. ii. p. 184.
38
Laing, Appendix, p. 304.
39
Deposition of John Hay in Anderson, vol. ii. p. 177.
40
Deposition of William Powrie, in Anderson, vol. ii. p. 165.
41
Anderson, vol. ii. p. 183.
42
Ibid. vol. ii. p. 181.
43
Buchanan’s
44
Buchanan’s
45
Freebairn’s Life of Mary, p. 112 and 114.
46
Deposition of Paris in Laing, vol. ii. p. 305.
47
Evidence of Thomas Nelson, Anderson, vol. iv. p. 165.
48
The Confessions and Depositions in Anderson, vol. ii. and vol. iv; and in Laing, vol. ii.
49
Melville’s Memoirs, p. 174. Lesley in Anderson, vol. i. p. 24. Freebairn, p. 115.
50
Anderson, vol. i. p. 36. – Goodall, vol. ii. p. 245.
51
Laing, vol. ii. p. 289 et 290.
52
Historie of King James the Sext, p. 6.
53
Miss Benger, vol. ii. p. 313.
54
Sanderson’s Life of Mary, p. 48. – Freebairn, p. 113.
55
Knox, p. 404.
56
Keith, p. 365.
57
Melville, p. 174.
58
The notion that the powder, with which the Kirk-of-Field was blown up, had been placed in a mine, dug for the purpose, was for a while very prevalent. Mary, of course, never suspected that it had been put into her own bedroom; but the truth came out as soon as the depositions of Bothwell’s accomplices were published. Why Whittaker should still have continued to believe that a mine had been excavated, it is difficult to understand. Laing very justly ridicules the absurdity of such a belief.
59
There is a sincere piety in this rejection of the word “chance.” Mary was steadily religious all her life, and certainly nothing but a pure and upright spirit could have induced her, on the present occasion, to appeal to her Creator, and say, “It was not chance, but God.”
60
Keith, Preface, p. viii.
61
Anderson, vol. i. p. 36.
62
Lesley in Anderson, vol. i. p. 23.
63
Keith, p. 368.
64
Laing’s remarks upon this subject, are exceedingly weak. He seems to suppose that Mary, for the mere sake of appearances, ought to have thrown into prison some of her most powerful nobility. He adds, – “If innocent, she must have suspected somebody, and the means of detection were evidently in her hands. The persons who provided or furnished the lodging, – the man to whom the house belonged, – the servants of the Queen, who were intrusted with the keys, – the King’s servants who had previously withdrawn, or were preserved, at his death, – her brother, Lord Robert, who had apprised him of his danger, were the first objects for suspicion or inquiry; and their evidence would have afforded the most ample detection.” Laing does not seem to be aware, that he is here suggesting the very steps which Mary actually took. She had not, indeed, herself examined witnesses, which would have been alike contrary to her general habits and her feelings at the time; but she had ordered the legal authorities to assemble every day, till they ascertained all the facts which could be collected. Nor does Laing seem to remember, that Bothwell had it in his power to exercise over these legal authorities no inconsiderable control, and to prevail upon them, as he in truth did, to garble and conceal several circumstances of importance which came out.
65
Killigrew, the English ambassador, sent by Elizabeth to offer her condolence, mentions, that he “found the Queen’s Majesty in a dark chamber so as he could not see her face, but by her words she seemed very doleful.” – Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 209.
66
Chalmers, vol. i. p. 208.
67
68
Anderson, vol. i. p. 50.
69
Goodall, vol. i. p. 346,
70
Chalmers, vol. i. p. 209. The above fact is no proof, as Chalmers alleges, that Murray was connected with the conspirators; but it shows, that whatever his own suspicions or belief were, he did not choose to discountenance Bothwell. Could Mary ever suppose that the
71
Anderson, vol. i. p. 52.
72
Robertson – Appendix to vol. i. No. XIX.
73
Anderson, vol. ii. p. 103.
74
Anderson, vol. ii. p. 104, et seq. – and Keith, p. 375, et seq.
75
Anderson, vol. ii. p. 157.
76
Anderson, vol. i. p. 107; and Keith, p. 381.
77
Keith, p. 382. – There are extant two lists of the names of the subscribers, and these differ in one or two particulars from each other; but the one was only a list given to Cecil from memory by John Reid, Buchanan’s clerk; the other is a document authenticated by the subscription of Sir James Balfour, who was at the time Clerk of Register and Privy Council. The chief difference between these two copies is, that Reid’s list contains the name of the Earl of Murray, though on the 20th of April he was out of the realm of Scotland. It has been supposed that the bond, though not produced, might have been drawn up some time before, and that Murray put his name to it before going away. This is possible, but, considering Murray’s cautious character, not