Calendar of the State Papers relating to Scotland and Mary, Queen of Scots 1547-1603

Complete in thirteen volumes...

INTRODUCTION

Before treating of the contents of this volume, a few preliminary remarks may be made.

The State Papers of the sixteenth century relating to Scotland, preserved in the Public Record Office, were calendared in 1858 by the late Mr Markham J. Thorpe, under the direction of the Master of the Rolls. His work, which was published in two volumes, comprising altogether little more than 1000 pages, deals with 86 volumes of original papers, from the accession of Henry VIII. to the death of Elizabeth, some additions thereto known as the “ Conway Papers,” and 23 volumes of original papers relating to Mary Queen of Scots, during her detention in England from 1568 to 1587. In accordance, however, with the system which prevailed forty years ago, Mr Thorpe gave the briefest possible indications of the contents of the different letters and papers, and his valuable work must be regarded as a Catalogue rather than a Calendar.

The earlier part of Mr Thorpe’s volumes is being superseded by the Calendar of Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII., begun in 1862, and now within measurable distance of completion. This great work, edited successively by the late Dr Brewer and Mr James Gairdner, gives full abstracts and extracts from all documents of the period that are known to exist in England, whether in the Public Record Office or elsewhere. Inasmuch, however, as it is not to be continued beyond the death of Henry VIII., the present pubheation has been undertaken with the object of supplying students of Scottish history with fuller information for the period between 1547 and 1603, than they can obtain from Mr Thorpe’s volumes. It, accordingly, is to embrace not only the original series of Scottish State Papers, the “ Conway Papers,” and the Papers relating to Mary, Queen of Scots, all in their strict chronological order, but also analogous documents preserved in the British Museum and elsewhere in England, unless printed by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, or in other standard works.

The abstracts and extracts now given are, it is hoped, sufficiently full for all practical purposes. Curtailment, when found necessary, has been resorted to only in the case of documents in general between November 1558 and December 1560, and will be in regard to documents in the Public Record Office alone, between March 1561 and June 1577. For further information with regard to these, readers are referred to the Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, edited in eleven volumes (1863-80), under the direction of the Master of the Rolls, by the late Rev. Joseph Stevenson and the late Mr A. J. Crosby. This work, suspended for several years, has lately been resumed, but, under arrangements made with the authorities at the Public Record Office, it will not in future deal with the Scottish documents preserved there.

The present volume is the first instalment of the new Scottish Calendar, and covers a period of about sixteen years. It may be divided into four portions of time : (1) The government of Arran (1547-1554) ; (2) the regency of Mary of Lorraine (1554-59) ; (3) the troubles of religion, followed by her supersession and death, and inter-regnum thereafter (1559-1561); and (4) from the return of Queen Mary to her own kingdom in August 1561, till April 1563.

It opens with some references to the garrison of St Andrews, and their hopes of relief from England, before long to be frustrated by their surrender to the French before Somerset’s intended aid by sea could reach them. As is historical, the murderers of the Cardinal, who seized the Castle, were afterwards joined by many, Knox and other preachers among them, ostensibly for the free exercise of their religion. All, however, being regarded as accessories after the fact, were so treated on the fall of the Castle. That they were on friendly terms with England would appear from a letter, addressed by Patrick, Lord Gray, then in the Castle, on 11th March 1546-7, to Edward VI. and Somerset,1 binding himself, in return for certain favours in money, etc., to promote the young Queen’s marriage in England, and deliver his castle of Broughty for an English garrison. Norman Leslie, Master of Rothes, and James Kirkcaldy of Grange,2 two of the witnesses, were outlawed as actual murderers; Henry Balnaves and Alexander Whytlaw, the other two, were notable among the Reformers. Gray, before long, proved as great a double dealer as his more notorious grandson, the Master of Gray.

The death of Henry VIII. brought no relief to Scotland, for the over-bearing Protector, who had done it so much evil as Earl of Hertford, was as ready, under his new dignity, to carry out the designs of his late master, either by force or by tampering with discontented Scotsmen of all ranks, by the usual inducements. One of his chief correspondents, while he prepared the army which overthrew the Scots at Pinkie, was William, Earl of Glencairn, now an old man, who had been taken at Solway Moss, and, from the letters before us, seems to have acted a treacherous part, sending all the news he or his spies could gather of the Governor’s forces and intentions, up to the eve of Pinkie.3 He is sometimes said to have been killed there, but the Governor forbade him to be in the field,2 and he was in Council with the Queen Dowager at Stirling on 12th January 1547-8.3 In July 1547 he proposed to Somerset to fortify a strong position on the Clyde, opposite the town of Greenock,3 which, had it been acted upon, would have been as disastrous to the country around as Lord Gray’s delivery of Broughty was to the borders of the Tay.

The Protector’s religious views did not preclude him from employing Lennox, though regarded as a Catholic by the Dowager and his cousin Stewart of Cardonald, to scourge his countrymen in the west of Scotland who opposed his designs. But Lennox’s sole motive was hostility to the Hamiltons, and, though not a religious one, so far coincident with the Protector’s aim. He, too, had a plan for establishing the English on the Clyde.

On the Protector’s return after his victory, he left garrisons in Broughty Castle and St Colme’s Inch—the former under Sir Andrew Dudley, the latter under Sir John Luttrell. William, Lord Grey of Wilton, Governor of Berwick, was charged to see to them while guarding English interests on the East and Middle Marches of Scotland. The Castles of Roxburgh and Hume were also in English hands, those of Eyemouth and Lauder, with some minor strengths, soon following.

Though much damage was done on the Tay and Forth by the commanders of Broughty and Inch Colme, supported by the English fleet, the chief interest of this period centres in the English occupation of Haddington, and its subsequent siege by the French and Scots.

Some months before that event, however, Grey of Wilton had been approached by Sir George Douglas with a scheme for a fresh invasion by 6000 men, under his own guidance, through the heart of the southern counties, which he asserted would either result in the capture of the Queen Dowager and her daughter, or some nearly as important result. Grey submitted it without delay to the Protector, who at once replied, scouting the plan as a mere trap to destroy an army, warning Grey to beware of Douglas, and stating the only conditions for dealing with him. By the Protector’s order, guarded intercourse was kept up with the Douglases till the opportunity to punish their duplicity arrived.

He and Grey were otherwise fully occupied with reports from Broughty and Inch Colme, of the Scottish attempts to regain them—especially the former, whose captain burned and plundered on Tay side, planned to get Perth by means of the Ruthvens, and took Dundee, which town he was unable to hold above a month or two.

About this time an offer was made to Grey of Wilton to surprise the Castle of Edinburgh by means of the porter, but though approved by the Protector, and the Lairds of Ormiston and Brunston engaged to assist, the opportunity was lost. Preparations the while were quietly proceeding for two fresh inroads on the East and West—the former under Grey of Wilton, to survey Haddington and take hostages of the country to the gates of Edinburgh—the other under Lennox and Wharton, to ravage Annandale and Nithsdale, and, if possible, capture the Earl of Angus. Both expeditions started about 21st February 1547-8. Two days later, Grey reported from Haddington the delivery of Bothwell’s house of Hailes with his standard, besides other places of strength there; and a week after, that he had received two others, and pledges for delivery of Borthwick and Dalhousie.8 He had returned hurriedly to Berwick, owing to a report that Lennox and Wharton had been overthrown, taking Sir George Douglas with him, whom he agreed to put in charge of Tester, his nephew’s house, on giving his eldest son and another as pledges, apparently trusting him so far. Meantime, the Governor had recovered Salton, where Grey had placed Cockburn of Ormiston in charge, and burned Ormiston House, with the whole of Brunston’s effects, to punish these two English partisans. About the same time, Sir John Luttrell had evacuated St Colme’s Inch, bringing his men to Broughty Castle.

Turning to Lennox and Wharton’s raid, they crossed the March on 21st February, and, encamping at Lochmaben, awaited events.6 Angus, then at Drumlanrig, sent them messengers and letters to gain time—a course which might have succeeded with his son-in-law; but Wharton lost no time in attacking him, and though nearly foiled by the “ treason,” as he calls it, of the Master of Maxwell and his band of assured Scots, in the end put the Earl’s forces to flight, as he graphically reported to Somerset.7 This breach of faith was fatal to Maxwell’s unfortunate hostages, who were hanged at Carlisle to the number of 14, and caused deadly enmity between him and Wharton, as shown in subsequent papers.

Grey of Wilton, having been with the Protector, returned to his post, with full instructions, early in April 1548, and by the 24th was tracing out the fortifications of Haddington, with the aid of Sir Thomas Palmer, an engineer officer, who had been engaged strengthening Broughty by a new detached fort. Grey remained there for nearly two months at this work, also watching the Governor’s movements and the arrival of the French auxiliaries, long anxiously expected. He further took the opportunity of sharply punishing Sir George Douglas for his long course of trimming. On Sunday, 3rd June 1548, by skilful arrangements, he took the Castle of Dalkeith, and though Sir George escaped, his wife and son (the Master of Morton), with other important prisoners, were taken, with a large amount of spoil stored there by the country around. Angus, who was then at Tantallon, some 20 miles distant, and had professed to Grey a wish for amity, escaped an ambush laid for him, and got to Edinburgh by sea a few days after. From this time their credit with the Protector was at an end, though both still made verbal offers of service by means of Lennox, when writing to ask favour for some of the Dalkeith prisoners. They appear in the Queen Dowager’s company, at the ceremonies on the delivery of the Regalia of Scotland by the Council to the Lieutenant of France, during the siege of Haddington, when Angus bore the Crown and his brother made an oration to the assembly. From this date both appear little in public affairs.

Soon after the arrival of Desse and his army, the siege of Haddington began, before the English had completed their defences. The town was not at first closely invested, thus affording opportunities for relief, some of which were successful; but one, either through rashness or the superior skill of the French commander, was completely defeated, the English horsemen destroyed, and some important leaders taken. The garrison held out stoutly, repulsing various assaults; and though they suffered much from famine and plague, the town was retained, as we see here, till at least 17th September 1549, being then in extremity, for the relieving force was encamped at Innerwick, about 15 miles off, and much inferior to the French, under M. de Termes, Desse’s successor, who, with 2000 Scots allies, blocked their way at Lynton bridge, which he had razed, while the Tyne was in heavy flood.

This relieving force was but a remnant of the army which the Protector had raised for the .purpose in August 1548, numbering, when mustered at Berwick, at least 16,000 men, under the Earl of Shrewsbury. But the country was too much wasted to provision them, and on reaching Long Niddry, the Earl reported that he must at once fall back on Berwick, the French and Scots being encamped at Musselburgh, and the success of an attack on them doubtful. There he received orders to disband a large part of his force, and Haddington, which he had apparently relieved in passing, was left to its own resources.

The Protector’s persistence in his schemes is shown by his reviving the old claim of homage and superiority, and discussing it keenly with the French ambassador, to persuade Henry II. to withhold assistance from the Scots as rebels: and also sending Luttrell and Fisher to Argyll and others, to urge them to press Henry to return the young Queen to Scotland to complete her marriage with his nephew. This was a forlorn hope, for Argyll had already failed him, after accepting a large bribe through the agency of Gray, whose conduct during those two years is now clearly appreciable by means of several hitherto isolated letters.

When he offered his castle of Broughty to Somerset, he was one of the Solway prisoners on leave, the release of his brother, then his pledge, being one of the favours asked for and granted, besides 1000Z. for his castle; which he afterwards said was too little, and but for the “godly purpose,” would not have taken 5000Z. From October 1547 till February following, he and Alexander Whitelaw his “man,” assisted Sir Andrew Dudley in his operations at Broughty and Dundee against their countrymen —Argyll especially, of whom they professed great fear, though Dudley was often doubtful of their honesty. Suddenly, Gray is found borrowing 1000 crowns from Dudley to give to Argyll, who promised in writing to support the English marriage, which document Gray at once sent to Somerset, writing two days after that he would certainly gain Argyll.15 So little was he suspected, that the Governor offered him Argyll’s command against the English.7 Somerset forthwith sent a trusty envoy, John Brende, to Gray, to ratify his payment to Argyll, and offer him a pension of 2000 crowns, one-half of it land in England, and 10,000 crowns as a gift. Almost at the same moment, Argyll publicly denied, in the Townhall of Perth, that he had taken the King of England’s money.8 Only a week later, Brende, conducted by Gray, had a long conference with the Earl at Cupar-Angus, of which he wrote a very minute account to the Protector, showing Argyll’s caution, unwillingness at first to sign anything, and his enmity to Huntly; Brende greatly praising Gray’s activity and pains in the business. Within ten days after this meeting however, Argyll, from Castle Carrick, wrote to Gray, complaining that he had revealed it, and requiring him to deny it. In another week Gray is writing to the Protector, to deny a cruel report that he was unfaithful to England, desiring the truth to be tried; while his faithful “servant ” Whitelaw backed his master, assuring the Protector he would inform on him if there was anything wrong. Sir John Luttrell, newly come to Broughty, also assured Grey of Wilton of his Scottish namesake’s “honourable service to the King.” But a surprise awaits us in a letter from the Queen Dowager, then at Dunbarton Castle, to Gray, accepting his bond to serve her daughter and herself, promising to pay him 500 marks during service, till a better provision.16 The Protector, who surely must have been ignorant of these strange proceedings on Gray’s part, despatched Fisher his secretary, three months later, to “the King’s town of Dundee,” or Broughty Castle, directing him, along with Luttrell, to send for Lord Gray, give him the King’s and his own thanks, with a gold chain, a pension of 1000 crowns, and 300 crowns from himself: further, to procure a secret meeting with Argyll, give him also a gold chain, and, on his signing certain articles against the Governor, to promise him a royal pension of 2000 crowns as an earnest of future favours. Finally, directing all four to consult on certain operations against Dunkeld, Perth, and several seaport towns. Whether this reached Argyll or not, he was before Haddington a few days after, “to the surprise of all men,” it is said; and at the Council held on 7th July, delivered the Sceptre of Scotland to Dessd for Henry II. Seven weeks later, the Queen Dowager and Governor licensed Lord Gray and others to abide at home from the army at Musselburgh, to defend Dundee against assaults from Broughty Castle ; and on the very day after, Gray wrote to the Protector that he had spoken with Atholl, Crawford, and several other lords, who would serve the King’s godly purpose, if “honestly entertained,” referring other matters to Luttrell, the man whom he was to resist! Retribution nearly overtook him soon after, for Brende, on 23rd November, wrote to the Protector that the Lord Gray was a prisoner in Edinburgh, and Desse demanded that he should die, the Scottish Lords resisting it. He escaped his deserts, however, for not long after, the Governor required the Court of Session to proceed in a case sued before them by his cousin, Patrick Lord Gray, against the Laird of Duncrowb. He was a prisoner on leave from Aug. to Dec. 1559, but appears little more till 11th May 1560, when the Queen Regent wrote to him, accepting his offers of service, and desiring him to persevere therein, “ as in times past.”19 And on 8th October following, Queen Mary wrote to him, from St Germains, of her pleasure at seeing by his letters, his constant service to her late mother and herself, and to continue it during “ these troubles.” So his doubtful conduct was either unknown to, or had been forgiven by these two royal ladies. But though perhaps, an extreme case, it shows the want of principle then among Scotsmen in high place.

Gray had been again made prisoner along with the Master of Marischal during the reign of Philip and Mary, which may account for his non-appearance at first during the troubles, but not for his doubtful conduct after the Queen Regent’s death. He was released by Aug. 1559, and again about the end of 1560, on a bond for 1000/. for his re-entry on 40 days’ notice, and was still unransomed in April 1562.

Among the Protector’s many instruments of inferior rank, was one James Henrison or Herrison, who first appears on 11th July 1547, writing to show him how four fortresses in Fife might be seized, offering his own services elsewhere on the Border, if suitably rewarded, and asking his arrears of pension since February.1 Some time after, he sent him a memorandum how to keep his hold on Scotland, the reward asked being the deanery of Auckland “in heritage.” He next wrote to Sir John Thynne and Cecil, as being in most credit with the Protector, to procure him leave to print a “little book,” with such corrections as his Grace pleased, also payment of six months’ pension due. This work, styled The Godly and Golden Book, is a curious production, showing the author to have been possessed of some historical and classical learning—its object being the union of the realms under Edward VI.

The Protector, like other great men, perhaps neglected his instruments after serving his turn, and must have forgotten Henrison, for he again made an earnest appeal to Thynne and Cecil to do what they could for him, as one “left out of the peace,” hinting that God might punish untfiankfulness. After inditing another lengthy paper, chiefly directed towards the conquest of Scotland, and disposal of church property, ending with an admonition to the Protector to beware how he neglected a faithful servant, Henryson disappears from view with his patron.

Nothing is said here of the Dowager’s return from France by the English Court, and her interview with Edward in 1551. Before the close of Edward’s reign, by the intervention of the French ambassador, the long contested Debateable land was divided, as shown on a curious coloured plan of the bounds.

During the reign of Philip and Mary, after the Queen Dowager assumed the regency in April 1554, the relations of the two countries were on the whole amicable, religious questions being for the time in abeyance, though, towards its close, there were some troubles on the Marches, and fears on the part of England of a French invasion through Scotland.1 That there were good grounds for these, appears from The Talbot Papers (Lodge’s Blustrations, Vol. I. pp. 326-60) showing that in Oct. 1557, a strong force under the Duke, Huntly, Morton, Argyll, and others, menaced an invasion on the East Marches, which was frustrated by the weather. D’Oysel with a body of French was with them.

With the accession of Elizabeth, on 17th November 1558> matters altered greatly. Though the documents here show nothing of the communications of the reforming party with their continental friends, we find that she was scarcely seated on her throne before she was stirring up the discontented Chatelherault, by hinting danger to his right of succession through the young Queen’s marriage, as Sir Henry Percy reported to an anonymous officer of state, only for the ears of the Queen and Cecil. Before many months elapsed, the religious troubles began by riotous assemblies at Dundee, Perth, and elsewhere, excited by the continual preachings of Knox and others, to the “ rascal multitude.”8 Knox had been little more than a fortnight in Scotland, and had been refused leave to pass through England. The author of The First Blast was “odious” to Elizabeth,27 though she was willing enough to use him at a safe distance as an instrument. The “irritable temper” with which his biographer Dr M‘Crie credits him, was not likely to be softened by such treatment, while his nineteen months’ captivity in France could not but sharpen his desire to upset authority in the Regent’s person as a native of the country in whose prisons he had lain. Such considerations must have aided greatly in his vehemence for the new religion—it would have been strange if they had not—human nature being what it is.

Elizabeth and her adyisers cared little about the “Religion,” save as a means to checkmate the French designs, real or supposed, on her crown and realm, and to this end the bait of assistance in establishing his right to the Crown of Scotland was held before the vacillating Chatelherault. If Mary was got out of the way, his friends thought that Elizabeth might accept his son Arran, and thus unite the realms. This explains the urgent desire to get Arran out of France, as one “ so well bent in religion,” and the only hope of the realm, so as to steady his irresolute father. After some vicissitudes, he eluded the vigilance of the French, and early in September reached Scotland secretly, as Cecil was advised from Berwick. Without loss of time he joined actively in the disturbances of the country, his energy being much commended by Elizabeth’s agent, Randolph,8 though later events caused a wonderful change in his estimate. There can be little doubt Arran’s head was turned long before his insanity developed itself.

To enter into details of this period would be to re-write history, already done with more or less impartiality in well-known works. Here the limits of a preface only permit reference to salient points. It is easy for modern writers in the light of events to condemn the Queen Regent as the crafty foe of true religion, while she was but maintaining the undoubted rights of her daughter, menaced both from within and without her realm. The insurgent lords, though they disclaimed any •such design, were well aware of the danger of disturbing “established authority,” and the difficulty in exciting the multitude to revolt, though prepared for either alternative. Nor would Elizabeth have supported them against a sister sovereign, but for her fears of France, and all Cecil’s astuteness was required to keep her aid in the dark, sending messages verbally by a third person, till events made concealment impossible.

Knowing with whom she had to deal, and the treachery of some even in her own service, the Queen Regent had need of all her talent. Before long her suspicions of Elizabeth’s underhand aid against her daughter’s throne were fully confirmed, in spite of Elizabeth’s profession of much regret at the unruliness of her subjects, at the same date as she was sending Sadler with 3000Z. for secret service among these unruly people. The Regent, ignoring this duplicity, replied, in a dignified style, that she could not believe a princess of honour capable of favouring disorder in a friendly realm. Shortly after, William Maitland, younger of Lethington, till then her secretary, deserted her for the service of the lords of the Congregation (as they now styled themselves), who despatched him to Elizabeth to treat; while they themselves, soon after addressing the Regent, suspended her commission, on the pretext that they did so for weighty reasons, as representatives of their King and Queen, against whose will they alleged she was administering the Government. After this defiance of her authority, it is not surprising that by her orders Cockburn of Ormiston, when bringing 1000Z. from Berwick to the insurgents, was stopped near Haddington by the Earl of Bothwell, and the money taken. Though cutting off supplies is a usual operation of war, the Protestant leaders treated it as Bothwell’s own act, and plundered and spoiled his house, title deeds, &c.; Arran, who had been conspicuous in the damage, receiving a cartel of defiance from Bothwell, and in return giving him the lie, but refusing to fight with him as no better than a thief. These deadly courtesies were strangely and suddenly changed in little more than two years to close friendship for a brief period between the two men.

A further subsidy having reached them from Elizabeth,9 the Congregation were enabled to carry on operations against the French in Fife and the West, with varying fortune till the English fleet reached the Forth on 22nd January 1559-60; Wynter, the admiral, as instructed by Norfolk, accounting for his hostile appearance and acts there by a transparent subterfuge, and assuring the Scottish herald sent by the Dowager, that Elizabeth was not privy to what he had done. Before this time the French were in possession of Leith, and finally were obliged to concentrate all their force there, when the English invasion became imminent. An intercepted letter to the Queen Regent about this time, from her brothers the Cardinal and Duke of Guise, shows that they had penetrated Elizabeth’s designs, and saw that if she could settle a peace with France and Spain, she would have no scruple in throwing over the Protestant party, who themselves greatly feared it, as the papers show. Before her treaty with them was concluded, Cecil himself had to come to Edinburgh with Dr Wotton, and it was all but frustrated by Elizabeth’s obstinacy in demanding the surrender of Calais as a sine qua non, though Cecil told her the Guises would never consent.

On the evacuation of Leith (5th July 1560), the successful party convened a Parliament, under the presidency of Chatel-herault, and after annulling the Pope’s authority, settling the Confession of Faith, and other questions, despatched two embassies, one to their Sovereigns, the other to Elizabeth with a proposal for her marriage to Arran. This was the Duke’s real motive for his fervour in the Reformation—though he and his son before long saw their hopes were vain, and that they were but tools in the hands of others. The wary Cecil had been careful not to commit himself while in Scotland.6 On the departure of the embassies, an expedition was sent to Castle Sempill to punish its owner, one of the few who had been faithful to the late Queen Regent—a rare quality in the supporters of either side. It was taken after ten days’ siege, great praise being given to Arran as leader, doubtless to recommend him to Elizabeth, though wiser heads assisted him. The Ambassador sent to France was dismissed by Francis II. with a rebuke to the Estates, and an intimation that duly accredited envoys would be sent to them; while those to Elizabeth were told, in terms complimentary to Arran, that she was not disposed to marriage for the present, advising him to look elsewhere for a consort. Soon after this, Mary, now a widow, sent four commissioners with instructions as to her interests in Scotland; her brother-in-law Charles IX., and his mother also sending an amicable message to the Estates. The Scottish Council lost no time in sending envoys to Mary to urge her to maintain the English alliance, as well as to counteract any other design, choosing for the purpose her half-brother Lord James as acceptable to herself and in favour with Elizabeth, with others of their party; Maitland in the meantime, doing his utmost to penetrate the errand of Mary’s commissioners.® Suspicions at the same time arose that the Duke and his son, seeing the hopelessness of the alliance with Elizabeth, were thinking of one with Mary, and directly communicating with her. This idea she from the first absolutely declined to entertain, no doubt well knowing their selfish objects in promoting the opposition to her late mother.

Lord James departed on his embassy on 18th March 1561, escorted by Randolph to Berwick, but there are no details here of him in France, nor any papers in this volume between 29th March and 1st June. He was again in Edinburgh by 5th June, and probably with his knowledge, Maitland wrote to Mary on the 10th, offering his services to her. To this she replied that if he made good his professions he need fear no calumniators; but, knowing he had been the chief instrument in all the practices of her nobles, he must labour to undo the past as he well knew how, and so assure his affection; also that if anything went wrong after she trusted him, he must bear the blame. She concluded with some instructions on her affairs, and that she was on the point of starting for Scotland, as she had already signified by Lord James39—altogether a very business-like letter. Lord James a month after, wrote to Elizabeth, in his sister’s behalf, much desiring friendship between them, pointing out (as was the fact, apart from the Will of Henry VIII. and the Act of Parliament which gave that Will the force of law), her undoubted right of succession, and the injustice of excluding it.2 As he inclosed it to Cecil, with power to withdraw it if he thought fit, Elizabeth may never have seen it. Mary was now on her way, yet, if Randolph may be credited, the writer of this appeal, with Maitland and Morton, told him they approved of Cecil’s great desire to stay her return, and “cared not though they never saw her face!” This is a very strange account of matters, for besides these two letters just cited, Morton, on 17th March before, had sent a special messenger to Mary, protesting his constant support of her mother and herself, his sufferings therefor, his desire to see her home, solemnly declaring his faithfulness till death.

Though Elizabeth put every hindrance in the way, Mary braved the risk, and with only two galleys and a slender train, unexpectedly arrived at Leith on 19th August 1561, after an absence of 13 years.4 The sole opposing voice in the general acclamation, appears to have been that of Knox, who, as Randolph said, “so thundereth out of the pulpit ” that he feared one day he would “mar all.” In his first interview with the Queen, on 4th September, she gave him the sound advice to be more charitable to those who disagreed with his opinions, and to “use more meekness in his sermons.”

Henceforth, apart from the internal affairs of the country, much disturbed by the difficulty in reconciling Mary’s observance of her own faith, with the aggressive fervour of the professors of the new religion, much correspondence took place on the debated question of the meeting of the Queens, for which Mary and her new secretary showed an earnest desire, not so warmly entertained by Cecil and his mistress.

Early in March 1862, the course of affairs was startled by the unaccountable sudden reconciliation of Bothwell and Arran —the latter’s confession of a conspiracy between his father, Bothwell, and himself against the Queen and others—the denial by the Duke and Bothwell—ending in Arran’s lunacy and committal to prison after long inquiry, Bothwell and some others being also put in ward.40 Not long after this affair, the Huguenot troubles in France, in which Elizabeth was minded to interfere, occasioned her sending Sir Henry Sydney to Mary, to postpone their interview (intended to have taken place that autumn) till the following year. Later this year, the sudden expedition of Mary to the north as far as Inverness, against the Earl of Huntly and his rebellious sons, in the early part of which her brother, then Earl of Mar, had been created Earl of Moray, followed by the deaths of Huntly in the field, and his son Sir John Gordon on the scaffold, took place.

The distressing and presumptuous attempted outrage of Chate-lar (or, as Randolph calls him, Chartellet) next occurred while Mary was on her way to St Andrews, speedily followed by the culprit’s execution there. The private confession he is said to have made is not given here. The year ended sadly for Mary and her Court, with the assassination of her uncle, Francis Duke of Guise, the able chief of the Catholic League.

After this slight outline of the contents of the volume, a few words may be said on some of the personages who have passed in review before the reader. Here the editor, in the execution of his duty, as he is strictly bound to do, will confine his remarks on them to the information afforded in the papers before him, ignoring the views and assertions of former writers, historical or otherwise, or of partisans on either side, often founded on insufficient or distorted authority, often upon none whatever. A notable error pervading many of these is to disregard the spirit of that age, and represent the actors on one side as saints, and on the other as demons, while all were but ordinary mortals, subject to the usual failings of humanity. Fairness compels the admission that this is quite as noticeable in some writers on the Protestant side as in those on the other, for intolerance was by no means confined to one party. The Reformers were no more angels than the Catholics. When either side got its opponents down, it had no scruple in doing its worst to them—a feature in religious contests of all eras. It pervades the writings of Knox ; and that it was not confined to him is well shown by a letter of his colleague Goodman to Cecil, where, after lecturing Elizabeth through him on the abuses of her worship, and offence thereby to godly hearts in IJngland, he demands the slaughter of the “bloody bishops and known murderers of God’s people.”

First in rank and time is Mary of Lorraine. From the day when she was left a widow till her death in the Castle of Edinburgh, at a comparatively early age, she had been harassed by many anxieties. Called upon at the outset to protect her infant daughter from the designs on one hand of Henry VIII., on the other from those of Arran, whose chief end was ever the preservation of his right of succession and his family interests, the Queen Mother proved herself to be a woman of ability and tact, both then and afterwards, when confronted by the same Arran and his associates, secretly aided by Elizabeth. The charges of dissimulation and the like, often made against her, are not borne out by anything to be found here. The Queen Regent represented established government, the other party sought its subversion for opinions, which might or might not be justified by results—just as the leaders of the “Pilgrimage of Grace” and the “Rising of the North” in the sister kingdom did—though success attended one, and failure the others. Her dignified despatches to Elizabeth, and the latter’s shuffling often lying replies, speak for themselves. One thing is apparent, the maligned Regent (as even Buchanan admits) was a lady of singular merit, and well inclined to justice. She, at least, did not exult in the death of her opponents, as some of the latter and their English allies did in an unseemly manner, at the approach of her own ; and her fortitude during her last days is well shown here, with her tolerant spirit in enduring the presence of the ex-Franciscan Willock at her death-bed, whom the average Catholic would have excluded as a heretic.

A different estimate must be formed of the Governor Arran. He was a Protestant and Papist by turns during his first regency, when it was his interest to support the Queen Mother against the designs of Henry VIII. and Hertford on the young Queen; and then closely allied with France, where he received the honour and revenues of a Dukedom. Yet, not long after his voluntary resignation of his office in the Queen Mother’s favour, he repented and intrigued against her, of which there are indications here even in the scanty records during Philip and Mary’s reign? That this was known in England, appears from Sir Henry Percy’s report of his mission to sound the Duke’s views shortly after the accession of Elizabeth.

Though at first, on the outbreak of the troubles, he gave a half-hearted support to the Queen Regent, he was soon converted to the views of the Congregation. The inducements held out were evidently the supersession of the Regent, the setting aside of the young Queen in certain events, and the marriage of his son to Elizabeth, thus uniting the realms. The last was undoubtedly held out by the lords of the Congregation, with the two former, but not so warmly received by Elizabeth or Cecil, though the latter made a show of displeasure at the Ambassadors’ acquiescence in the first rejection of the proposal—prompted by the Queen’s vanity, who loved to see suitors dangling about her. This possible alliance (oddly reviving a like proposition of Henry VIII. seventeen years before)45 greatly possessed the Duke’s mind for a time, as the letters of Randolph and Maitland show ; but, on finding it unlikely, both father and son, on Mary’s widowhood, turned their thoughts in her direction, soon to find them hopeless, as no doubt she knew well how they had behaved to her mother. She treated both of them, however, with great justice, as Randolph attests on several occasions, in spite of the Duke’s fears.

It cannot be said that this nobleman figures in our history as his high position demanded. Fickle and irresolute, now without the advice of his former mentor, Sir George Douglas, and evidently much in contact with Randolph, whose chief mission seems to have at first been to watch him and his son, the Duke was at one time in the highest exultation, at another in the lowest spirits—affected even to tears in Mary’s presence, when the unhappy condition of his favourite son dashed his cherished hopes to the ground. And when his private interest was threatened by the power he had helped to call into being, namely, that owners of church land, largely held by his family, should contribute to the endowment of “the religion,” the Duke is found ready to revert to his old belief, and make common cause with his brother the Archbishop as a fellow-sufferer, whom, in his Protestant days, he had done his best to keep down.3 Nor was the Duke’s status quite secure, for Mathew, 4th Earl of Lennox, as the grandson of the 1st Earl’s only sister, Lady Elizabeth Hamilton, was a formidable rival for the position of second person n the realm. Earl Mathew’s forfeiture, when he sided with Henry VIII., and married his niece, weighed much against his claim, as did Elizabeth’s opposition to it so long as she supported the Duke and the Protestant party—but it existed none the less, and constantly appears in these and other papers of the time.

The curious discussion between Lennox and Chatelherault, in which Maitland took part as a supporter of the Hamiltons, without any date, may possibly be referable to the years 1560-61, when Lennox, in the hope of Mary’s return, appears to have been bestirring himself (or rather, was stirred up by his friends) for his reinstatement in Scotland. In the discussion, it is remarkable that the ground of divorce between the Duke’s father and his first wife Elizabeth Hume, is partly said to be the consanguinity of Arran and Thomas Hay, her first husband. While in a notarial copy of their divorce (indorsed, too, by Cecil), the sole ground alleged is, that Elizabeth Hume, at the date of her contract with the Earl, was the lawful wife of Hay, who had appeared and opposed the contract, though he had died before the date of the divorce—November 1504.

The declaration by Bishop Barlow, of 21st March 1562-3, the memorandum as to the Countess of Lennox, and the attestation, on 2nd April 1528, of the divorce of her parents on 11th March before,48 relate, no doubt, to the debates in Parliament in the early part of the year 1563, on the succession to the Crown of England and the status of Lady Lennox therein.

Lord James Stewart, better known as the Prior of St Andrews and Earl of Moray, may next be noticed. He first appears here in March 1549,49 when Somerset wished to gain him. He could not have been more than about 16 years old. Ten years later he was in active opposition to the Queen Regent, and conspicuous among the lords of the Congregation. His suspected views on his sister’s crown are plainly hinted at in a paper by Cecil, instructing Sadler, that if the Duke is “cold in his own cause” and if Lord James was really aiming at the Crown, “ it may not be amiss to let Lord James follow his own device without interference.”1 His private signet favours this, showing no mark of abatement.2 He was in great favour with Mary when the Hamiltons were out of it, and dissensions between the Duke and him are mentioned.® When sent on embassy to Mary, early in 1561, a special instruction was to “grope” her mind on certain matters, and as he passed, both going and returning, by the English Court, accredited to Elizabeth, it is possible that he imparted Mary’s views. Having been so useful an instrument in her schemes in Scotland, he had a pension from her, as the English State Papers show. Here, as already pointed out, there is a blank of two months (April-May) during his mission;4 but, on 1st July after, Elizabeth paid him a high compliment, which she was not given to do, without value received. It may have been the fashion of the day, but beyond any of his colleagues, with the exception of Ruthven and the preachers, his letters abound in scriptural phrases, even to such a man as Lord Robert Dudley, who was no model of Christian graces.

George, Earl of Huntly, Chancellor of Scotland, first appears here as a close ally of the Governor. Being taken at Pinkie, and, too important a prisoner to be left near the Border, he was sent to London on 30th September 1547,50 and remained in the south till March following, Grey of Wilton strongly urging his detention despite his promises, and the mere hint of his return startling Argyll into a pledge to join the Protector.® From this date till the end of the year, he was in England, partly in Sir Ralph Vane’s keeping, partly at Newcastle with Grey, who was still doubtful of his professions, and finally at Penshurst in Kent, whence he wrote to the Protector, assuring him that if set free he would “do” as well as promise. On 6th December 1548, the Council licensed him to go to Scotland for ten weeks, leaving the Countess and others as pledges, and he was certainly in Edinburgh in the following January. It has been said that he escaped, but there is no evidence of it here, the last notice of him during the Protector’s time being in March 1548-9, when he appears to have written to his retainers to join the English invasion then preparing, and was evidently in England.

When the troubles broke out, ten years later, he was with the Queen Regent, but after some months’ suspense joined the council of the Protestants, and was one of the regents. On 10th December, he was keeping away from the Regent, and apparently from the Congregation also; but, shortly after, sent his cousin Sutherland to the latter, with assurances, and advice that the English should bring 2000 bowmen to oppose the French hacbutters. Still keeping aloof, he made the excuse that he had feared the other lords would make peace with France, and on 7th March wrote to Elizabeth, Cecil, and Maitland, with vague professions and verbal credit, his colleagues of the Congregation earnestly begging Cecil to keep these letters safe. From this time all doubted him, though his brother Alexander assured them of his honesty—till, on being satisfied in some demands, he at last joined the camp before Leith.55 After secretly signing the “band” to expel the French and support England on 27th April, on 2nd May he devised a new and straiter “band,” and ratified the Berwick treaty on 10th.10 He had kept out of the way while peace negotiations were in progress, for on 30th June, he wrote from his house of Huntly to Cecil, that he had been unaware of his coming to Scotland, or certainly would have spoken with him—asked how he might serve him, and spoke of the evil influence of the late Queen Regent. The postscript only of Cecil’s reply is extant, advising him to beware of the French; and henceforth little is heard of him, except rumours of conspiracies with the French party, till, on Mary’s arrival, he hurried post-haste to Edinburgh, bore the Sword of State at her public entry, and attended her person for some time, having a violent dispute in her presence with Lord James on the Mass, which he offered to re-establish in three northern counties. In February 1561-2, he was at Lord James’ marriage, but was soon out of favour with Mary, as an opponent of her earnest desire to meet Elizabeth.

The details of the Queen’s expedition against the Earl and his rebel sons, from 2nd September till his defeat at Corrichie on 28th October, and his death, “without blow or stroke,” in the field, are given by Randolph, who accompanied the Queen.

Various causes have been assigned for the doubtful proceedings of this powerful adherent, as he certainly was, of the old faith. It has been said that Huntly was disappointed at the tolerance shown by Mary to the Protestant party, a feeling, as Randolph’s letters show, general among the Catholics. But the Earl had not conducted himself so as to inspire confidence from either party, having by turns promised support to both, which he never fulfilled, as the papers here show. Mary, in her heart, cannot have forgiven his desertion of her mother. As for his alleged designs, confessed by his son and servants, to murder Moray, Morton, and Maitland, while quite in accordance with the methods of the time, we know how confessions were extorted then and long afterwards, and can only say that they may or may not be true.

Allusion has been made to Morton and his attempt to gain credit with Mary for devotion to her mother, not borne out, certainly, by the facts. This remarkable man had been trained under his father Sir George Douglas and his uncle Angus, and acted much the same part during Hertford’s invasion of 1545. There is no mention of him here, except his capture (while Master of Morton) at Dalkeith, till 21st May 1559, when the Regent commissioned him (now Earl of Morton) and others, to settle with England some points touching the Treaty of Cambray.59 But by 1st July he had joined the Congregation, and, being suspected, left Court before 1st August. He took no active part with the Congregation, and when they fled to Stirling from Edinburgh, he had already stolen into the Castle. From an allusion in a letter from Robert Melville to Croft, about 15th December, he appears to have deserted the Regent and gone out of her way beyond Forth. Self-interest probably moved him, for Maitland, writing to Cecil on 26th, told him of the Regent’s adverse mind to Morton on the Angus earldom, claimed by the Countess of Lennox.® He was apparently still undecided, for nothing more is heard of him here till 6th April 1560, when Randolph, writing to Cecil from the camp before Leith, said he had promised to join them next day ; though he did not, but appeared as one of the Regent’s envoys, having become “cold.” Yet, in a week after, he signed the “band” to expel the French, &c., and, trusting to see the assault on them succeed, he promised to be in camp, and ratified the Berwick treaty.59 By 25th May, Maitland on his behalf, assured Cecil of his affection to Elizabeth’s service, no doubt from his conviction that the Regent was on her deathbed, and the surrender of Leith imminent.9 And, being now fully committed, he superintended the dismantling of Dunbar, and as a lord of the Articles was active in the parliament to settle religious and political affairs.10 He was on the embassy to Elizabeth to propose his nephew Arran as her husband, and while in London, found time to see to his private interest against the Lennox claims, returning to Scotland soon after, when little more is heard of him, till he sent to gain Mary’s favour, as already referred to. He accompanied her on the expedition against Huntly, and was present at his defeat, soon afterwards obtaining his office of chancellor, as Randolph reported to Cecil, observing, “I doubt not now we shall have justice.” This hope was not fulfilled by Morton’s later career, for even Godscroft, the historian of the Douglases, had to admit his greed of money, nor did his conduct in office or his private life become this promoter of the reformation.

Among others of the nobility, Lord Ruthven® and his eldest son were equally ready with Gray to betray their country to Somerset for suitable consideration, offering to deliver the town of Perth under their hereditary government. Though some negotiation took place, and the Master often pressed for the money, nothing came of it.65 About the end of July the Master wrote mysteriously to Grey of Wilton on the subject, desiring him to tear up the letter, and two months later, Somerset wrote similarly to the Captain of Haddington, inclosing a concerted letter to be sent by him to the Master, as if he had failed to keep promise.

Neither appears again, till the Master, now Lord Ruthven, joined the Congregation, then in arms against the Regent, and sat on Council and as a regent, though suspected by some of them—why, does not appear, unless it was his friendship with Huntly and Hume.9 He was one of the lords who signed the treaty of Berwick, and gave his son Archibald as one of the pledges, requesting Cecil that the “boy” might be sent to Cambridge, and to assure Elizabeth of his own humble service. He was also among the twelve lords in the camp before Leith, who addressed Elizabeth and Mary on the same day, declaring their faithful service to both. Not long after, though again not thoroughly trusted, as a lord of the Articles he agreed to the suit for Elizabeth’s marriage, and was on their Council till Mary’s return. From that time he is not heard of for eighteen months, till Randolph wrote to Cecil that by Maitland’s means he was chosen of the Council, a thing much disliked by many, most of all by Moray for his “sorcery”—a charge brought against his unfortunate grandson Gowrie.

We must now speak of the woman on whose name the interest of the period must ever centre—Mary Stewart. “Whatever may be her faults, she will always be the picture in the history of Scotland ”—so said a great lawyer more than half a century ago, and the lapse of time confirms the remark. Though her career is rather a theme for the poet than for the exponents of theories founded on dry records, there seems to be no limit to the number of writers on the engrossing question of her character. While there is but a small part of her home reign here, it shows her return, a widow under, to the land of her birth, torn by differences in religion, to find herself surrounded, as has been said, “by unreasonable divines, and a nobility which had lost its old chivalry, and not acquired moral principles in its stead.” Whether her acquiescence in the religion she found established, was due to policy or conviction, she found no toleration for the exercise of her own. The usage of her chaplains, not only by the mob of Edinburgh, but by persons of higher rank, would have irritated a more angelic temper. Randolph, who was far from prejudiced in her favour, admits her justice to the Hamiltons, who had given her little reason to love them; and instances constantly appear of her desire that merchants and traders, both of her own and foreign countries, should receive their due at her own or other princes’ hands. Postponing further remarks till a later period, unprejudiced persons must admit that, considering the unruly elements with which she had to deal, this first period of her home reign shows, on the whole, a pleasing side of her character.

Maitland of Lethington has been the subject of almost equal controversy with his royal mistress. Regard for his own safety, if not an accusing conscience, prevented his going as envoy from the lords to France with the treaty of Berwick, for its ratification by Francis and Mary, on which the Lord of St John’s was despatched; and his fear of poison or assassination in France is unmistakably stated both then and at another time. He had sound reasons, seeing the active part he had taken in forwarding Elizabeth’s designs. The terms of his letter offering service to Mary, can only be conjectured from her reply, which is indorsed by Cecil, who possibly hoped by Maitland’s means, to learn her views; for he was in receipt of a pension from Elizabeth, after the fashion of the time.68 However, he seems to have done his duty to his new mistress, as, before long, the English ministers were cautioned by Randolph that he would stick at nothing on her behalf. His correspondence with Cecil, at one time craving help and advice as from a father, at another couched in very different terms, reveals the character of the man—his readiness in emergencies, and his classical learning. He, too, in spite of Knox’s value as an instrument, was no admirer of his rude and unconciliatory carriage towards his sovereign.

Of Knox himself it may be said that his letters show his thorough belief in his mission, his impatience of delay, and, on one occasion, his questionable advice to Croft how to give underhand assistance to the Congregation without committing Elizabeth; also his accusation of his own sovereign while on her voyage home, of sinister designs against Elizabeth, on the sole authority of his own assuredness, obviously to deprecate the latter’s wrath against his First Blast of the Trumpet." This unlucky revelation of his enmity to female government injured him greatly with Elizabeth, who could not endure him, in spite of his well-known letter to gain her favour, which, if she ever saw, must have defeated its object, by his admonitions to her to be humble, to beware of “ungrateness” to God, to remember how once, for fear of her life, she bowed to idolatry, and that she owed her rank to God, and not to her own deserts, as this was “ contrar to nature ”—this last clearly allusive to her sex. At the outbreak of the trouble, he was the soul of it, writing not a few of the letters from the lords for English aid. He naturally resented the Bishop of Dunkeld’s remark that he was “an old condemned heretic;” though, from the bishop’s point of view, it was true, if rudely spoken, and Knox himself used most opprobrious language to opponents.

There is a certain sense of incongruity when we see the grave Reformer, a widower bordering on his sixtieth year, about to take “a young lass not above 16 years of age,” as a second wife—a feeling shared by Randolph, who writes of it to Cecil, as a “great wonder” nearly beyond belief.

While Knox’s “History” is mainly valued as an authentic record of his own experiences, it appears, from Randolph’s letter to Cecil, that by 23rd October 1560, he had then written one book only, and, if Cecil approved of continuing it, he must have more help than he could get in Scotland, “of assured knowledge of things passed, than he had himself, or could.come by there.” Two instances out of several, where the “History” disagrees with the testimony of an eye-witness, occurred during the expedition against Huntly, viz., the accounts of Maitland’s address to the royal force, and fervent prayer on the field of Corrichie, and of Mary’s demeanour on learning Huntly’s death.5 Compared with what Randolph writes to Cecil, both receive a different complexion, and the second is especially coloured by Knox’s determination to see no good in anything Mary said or did.

Thomas Randolph, to whose letters we owe much of our knowledge of what passed in Scotland, first appears on Arran’s arrival there, who wrote to Sadler to send him without delay from Berwick.2 He seems to have been connected with Kent, and his real surname was Randal or Randoll, though he used an alias “Barnaby,” under which he was also addressed; but after some little time, he signed his name as “Randolphe.” Lodge {Illustrations, Vol. I. 431) describes him as a man of “adark intriguing spirit, full of cunning, and void of conscience, and in effect a spy.” His mission at first was that of a temporary agent under orders from Sadler and Croft, and in that capacity he attended the leaders of the Congregation to Glasgow in December 1559, remaining there till the following March, and reporting events, till Chatelherault sent him to the Duke of Norfolk at Berwick to deny a rumour that he had submitted to the King of France.5 On his return he accompanied the lords to the camp of Restalrig, for the first time reporting himself to Cecil direct: was lodged with the Duke at Holyrood, in camp again at the end of April, and remained there till the negotiations for peace, having been allowed to see the Dowager’s body lying in State in the Castle. He continued his reports to Cecil, and gave a curious account of the Confession of Faith, how Maitland and the Sub-prior of St Andrews had not only softened it down, but cut out a chapter on the obedience due by subjects, as being “unfit for the times.” Soon after, he wrote in melancholy terms to Cecil, possibly referring to the latter’s uncomfortable position through the Queen’s conduct with Dudley. However, he shortly recovered his spirits, when informing Cecil of the successful expedition to Castle Sempill. In a letter of 6th

February 1560-1, he appears for the first time as commissioned by Elizabeth, and till then to have been an inmate and boarder in the Duke’s house, bearing part only of his own expenses. He expressly declares that he had never received any gift from the Duke or Arran, except the chain which Cecil knew of; thus showing clearly he was no ambassador at that time, but merely a spy on the Hamiltons, and also Elizabeth’s jealousy lest he had become too friendly with them. The high opinion he at first expressed of the son, in time was greatly altered, and ended in his expressing the utmost contempt for both his father and himself—the former as inconstant, covetous, and greedy, the latter drowned in dreams and fantasies.2 Though he was now styled the Queen’s “agent,” and directly instructed by herself,8 the honour was greater than the pay, and he made many grievous complaints to Cecil of his debts and necessities, desiring to leave his post.

At Mary’s arrival he had no formal commission, causing her to inquire what he did there, and when he was to depart but shortly after, he received Elizabeth’s commands to present a demand for surrender of pirates, and remain in Scotland to understand affairs there; and on having presence, found the Queen of Scots content that he should tarry.80 Under these credentials he sent full reports of herself and her court, varying from day to day, but on the whole favourable, with such foreign news as he could gather. On ecclesiastical matters he took the view acceptable to his correspondents at the English court, giving all the scandal he could gather about the bishops, some of it almost incredible,6 yet did not fail to report also Knox’s daily prayer “that God will turn Mary’s obstinate heart ”—his utter mistrust in her, “ as though he were of God’s Privy Counsel,” and his conviction that she could never have “ one good thought of God or of his true religion.” And shortly after the affair of Chatelar he tells Cecil that the preachers’ daily prayers for Mary were “that God will either turn her heart, or send her short life”; expressing disapproval of their want of charity. Mary’s handsome gift of a gold cup at the marriage of Lord James, after drinking to Elizabeth’s health, impressed him favourably by its value, as he carefully appraises its weight. He attended her on the expedition against Huntly, his account of which is very full and curious, including his own prowess and imminent risk of being burned in Aberdeen, while Maitland’s “bed-fellow,” and other graphic touches, mentioning the fact that the earldom of Moray had once been “Earl Thomas Randolf’s,” perhaps a hint of distant kinship to the nephew of Bruce?

It is evident he did a good deal of work for Elizabeth. How much his pay was is unknown, for her warrants here are blank. In matters of fact under his own cognisance, he is probably a trustworthy witness, apparently wishing to tell the truth about the Queen of Scots, though it must be owned that his impressions of one day are sometimes at variance with those of the next.

For information as to other persons and matters of interest, recourse must be had to the Index, which the editor believes will be found a concise epitome of the text.

It is hoped that the new arrangement of many of the documents in the text may contribute in some respects to clearer knowledge of the motives that influenced the actors in the drama of the Scottish Reformation. Some, no doubt, were actuated by higher objects than mere love of change, but not a few had a keen perception of their worldly interests in subverting the old order of things.

J. B.