« EdellinenJatka »
severe penances. Anderson, vol. I., p. 283. Blackwood's Martyr de Marie, p. 128. Cooke's History of the Church of Scotland, vol.I., p. 9. Macrie's Life of Melvil, vol. I., p. 144. (73) Page 220. Bishop. Grindal wrote at that time to Bullinger, “Quomodocunque sit, infames illae nuptiae, non possant non in aliquam diram tragoedium desinere.” (74). Page 220. So says Croc, and adds, “her husband. will not be able to remain here long, for he is too much hated in the whole kingdom; and besides, people will be always convinced that the murder of the King was his work. St. Germain, MS. pp. 740–228. (75) Page 220. Croc seems likewise to be convinced of Mary's participation in the crime. (76). Page 222. Knox voted for the most rigorous view; the women expressed themselves: more violently against her than the men. At least, Throckmorton writes, “ the women be most. furious and impudent against the Queen, and yet the men be mad enough.” Nares, vol. II., pp. 447–448. (77) Page 223. Melvil, vol.I., p. 266. Stuart Scotl., vol. I., p.286. Bothwell was confined first at Malmohuus, afterwards at Dragsholm. Baden, Danmark's Riges Historie, vol. III., p. 428. (76) Page 226. Resolution of the Scotch Parliament: “According to the word of God, the murder of the King to be punist and all personis that were art, part, or doaris thairof, without exceptioun of persone, and that to the exemple of all otheris.” Acts of Parl. vol. III., p. 39. (77) Page 226. Lowther, the English civil officer, who received her, reported that the Queen's attire was very mean, that she had no change of clothes, and so little money, that he had paid the expenses of her journey to Carlisle. Turner, p. 439. (78). Page 228. Cecil was against setting Mary at liberty; Leicester for mild measures, to which Elizabeth was at first inclined; this appears from the particulars stated by Mons. de la. Motte Fenelon, who was sent by the King of France to London in 1568, to second Mary's entreaties to be set at liberty, as related in the letters from Paris, containing Illustrations of the History of the XVI. and XVII. Centuries. (79) Page 230. Nares, vol. II., p. 468, affirms, England would have found no security in the gratitude and magnanimity of other states, and adds, “there is nothing in the history of the sixteenth century that could lead us to think so; on the contrary, we believe every advantage possible would have been taken of the imbecility or supineness of Elizabeth's ministers, had they advised the Queen to act only on the principle of generosity: we verily believe she would have been generous only to her own ruin. On the 22d of October, 1568, the noble and moderate Earl of Sussex writes to Cecil, “I thymke surely no ende can be made good for England, excepte the person of the Queen be deteyned by one means or other in England." Lodge, vol. II., p. 5. (80) Page 230. Lady Scroop, sister of the Duke of Norfolk, and the ladies of the neighbourhood were to receive her. Elizabeth's orders were to treat her with every respect, but she would not compromise her own safety and personal honour by receiving her with cordial gratulation and public state in her royal court. Turner, pp. 439–451. (81) Page 231. The thing that most she thirsteth after is victory. Compared with victory, wealth and all things seem to her contemptible and vile. Report of Knollys. Turner, p. 442. (82) Page 237. Lenox (as he writes to his wife,) was convinced of Mary's guilt, “not only by my own knowledge, but by her hand-writing, the confessions of men gone to death, and other infallible experience.” Turner, p. 482. (83) Page 238. “The Queen, be divers hir previe letteris written halelie with her awin hand, and send be hir to James sumtyme Erle of Bothwell, cheif executour of the said horribill murthour, asweill befoir the committing thairof, as
thairester. And be hir ungodlie and dishonourabill proceding to ane pretendit mariage with him, suddandlie and unprovisitlie thairafter, it is maist certaine that scho was previe, airt and pairt, of the actuall devise and deid of the forinamed murthour,” &c. Acts of Parl., vol. III., p. 27. (84) Page 241. Mary and her confidants (so it is related,) had fixed a plan to have Murray murdered on his way back to Scotland. Turner, p. 533. (85) Page 242. We are entirely of the opinion of Nares, (vol. II., p. 418,) when he says, “he would not wish to impose on any person living the arduous and laborious task of reading the many accounts we have felt it our duty to read, in elucidation of these disastrous events.” (86) Page 247. I cannot here enter into a detailed investigation of the old arguments relative to the authenticity of the letters, &c., but will mention only the most recent remarks which Lingard makes on the subject in his History of England, vol. VIII., p. 507. (1) He wonders that some of the conspirators against Darnley, especially Maitland and Morton, are not mentioned in the letters. But, (a) Even if Mary entered into the plans it is not necessary that Bothwell should have named to her every one of his accomplices. (b) There appears no reason why she should mention in her letters, all, without exception. This doubt of Lingard's is too negative to authorise us thence to infer that the letters are not genuine. (2) He wonders that at first only the letters, not the sonnets, &c., were laid before the Parliament. To this Laing had already answered, “that the word letters, signifies in Scotch, the same as writings generally. Besides, the more important letters might have been first produced, and afterwards, as corroboratory proofs, the sonnets, which did not give such strong evidence of guilt.”
(3) The third objection relative to the writing and signatures of the letters has also been already refuted by Laing, and Murray's deposition on oath decides in favour of the correct reading, or instead of and. (4) Two of Mary's letters are dated the 23d and 24th of January, and are stated to have been answered by Bothwell from Edinburgh, on the 24th and 25th. But, according to Murray's journal, Bothwell left the city on the night of the 24th, and did not return till the 28th. Hence Lingard concludes, that the letters are forgeries, and the whole affair an imposture. We observe, (a) Errors and false readings of dates occur so easily and so frequently, that we cannot at once pronounce the documents not genuine. (b) But the error may just as well be in Murray's journal; nay, from Bothwell's letters, who must have known best where he was, this may be much more confidently inferred than the contrary. - - - (c) If Bothwell set out in the night of the 24th, suppose an hour after midnight, and dated the 25th, there remains no contradiction at all. - (d) Further, a report of the Duke of Bedford on the time of the journey points to corrections of the journal, not to a rejection of the letters. - (5) Lingard thinks it foolish that Mary, who had spoken to Bothwell in the evening, and might speak to him again in the morning, should, instead of going quietly to sleep, have sat down to write to him a letter “of no consequence.” This objection proves nothing, unless it be that Dr. Lingard never was in love. In conclusion, Lingard, notwithstanding his objections, says, “for my own part I have little doubt that the letters were, for the most part, written by Mary;” and he has nothing left but the question, which it is quite impossible to solve, whether, and how far, they have been changed?
Respecting the sonnets, the entire genuineness of which is still more firmly established beyond contest, Lingard is silent. Their contents, however, lead us to infer the truth of the letters. Turner fully coincides in our view of the case: History of Elizabeth, pp. 427–452; as well as Hallam, in his admirable History of the English Constitution, vol. III., p. 415. The latter very justly observes, “that nothing whatever is proved against Murray, and the innocence of Mary can by no means be deduced from the share that Lethington and Morton may have had in the King's murder.” (87) Page 248. The Scotch Parliament says more correctly, “persaving alswa the quene swa thrall and swa blindlie affectionat to the private appetite of that tyrane, and that baith he and scho had conspyrit togidder, sic horribill crueltie, &c. Acts of Parl., vol. III., p. 27. (88) Page 250. Catena and Gabutius, in their Life of Sixtus V., relate many particulars of the plans of the Popes and the Spaniards, to convert and to subdue England. The conspirators took the Duke of Norfolk “per loro capo, e Ridolfo, sotto specie di mercantia, resideva in quel regno finche muovesse gli animo al sollevamento per distruttione d'Elisabetha.” Catena, p. 102. (89) Page 251. The Pope called Elizabeth, “serva d'ogni sceleraggine,” who had “il regno a misera ruina richiamato.” Catena Vita de Sisto V., p. 286. It was in consequence of this Bull, and through those who defended it, that the dissensions in England became more violent and more serious. Soame, vol. IV., p. 676. (90) Page 253 is printed under the Text. (91) Page 267. In this border warfare, both parties behaved with the greatest cruelty, burning and plundering wherever they came. Carey Vindicia, p. 234. Cook's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. I., p. 95.
WOL. I. - U