The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (327 page)
Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
[a]Forbes, vol. ii. p. 276, 277.
[d]Forbes, vol. ii. p. 377, 498.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
254
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
[NOTE [F]]
This year the council of Trent was dissolved, which had sitten from 1545.
The publication of its decrees excited anew the general ferment in Europe; while the catholics endeavoured to enforce the acceptance of them, and the protestants rejected them. The religious controversies were too far advanced to expect that any conviction would result from the decrees of this council. It is the only general council which has been held in an age truly learned and inquisitive; and as the history of it has been written with great penetration and judgment, it has tended very much to expose clerical usurpations and intrigues, and may serve us as a specimen of more ancient councils. No one expects to see another general council, till the decay of learning and the progress of ignorance shall again fit mankind for these great impostures.
[m]Forbes, vol. ii. p. 287. Strype, vol. i. p. 400.
[p]Keith, p. 243, 249, 259, 265.
[r]Keith, p. 269, 270. Appendix, p. 158. Strype, vol. i. p. 414.
[x]Ibid. p. 280, 282. Jebb, vol. ii. p. 46.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
255
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
[f]Ibid. p. 545. Knox, p. 374.
[h]Ibid. p. 546. Knox, p. 381.
[NOTE [G]]
It appears, however, from Randolf’s Letters, (See Keith, p. 290.) that some offers had been made to that minister, of seizing Lenox and Darnley, and delivering them into queen Elizabeth’s hands. Melvil confirms the same story, and says, that the design was acknowledged by the conspirators, p. 56. This serves to justify the account given by the queen’s party of the Raid of Baith, as it is called. See farther, Goodall, vol. ii. p. 358. The other conspiracy, of which Murray complained, is much more uncertain, and is founded on very doubtful evidence.
[l]Keith, p. 293, 294, 300, 301.
[m]Knox, p. 380. Keith, Append. p. 164. Anderson, vol. iii. p. 194.
[q]Melvil, p. 57. Knox, p. 388. Keith, p. 319. Crawford, p. 62, 63.
[s]Ibid. p. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63. Keith, p. 322.
[t]Keith, p. 325. Melvil, p. 63.
[w]Melvil, p. 63. Keith Append. p. 176.
[x]Keith, p. 287, 329. Append. p. 163.
[y]Keith, p. 282, 302. Crawford’s Memoirs, p. 5. Spotswood, p. 193.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
256
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
[NOTE [H]]
Buchanan confesses that Rizzio was ugly; but it may be inferred, from the narration of that author, that he was young. He says, that on the return of the duke of Savoy to Turin, Rizzio was
in adolescentiae vigore;
in the vigour of youth. Now that event happened only a few years before, lib. xvii. cap. 44. That Bothwel was young appears, among many other invincible proofs, from Mary’s instructions to the bishop of Dumblain, her ambassador at Paris; where she says, that in 1559, only eight years before, he was
very young.
He might therefore have been about thirty when he married her. See Keith’s History, p. 388. From the appendix to the
epistolae regum
Scotorum,
it appears, by authentic documents, that Patrick, earl of Bothwel, father to James, who espoused queen Mary, was alive, till near the year 1560. Buchanan, by a mistake, which has been long ago corrected, calls him James.
[a]Keith, p. 326. Melvil, p. 64.
[b]Buchanan, lib. xvii, c. 60. Crawford, p. 6. Spotswood, p. 194. Knox, p. 393. Jebb,
vol. i. p. 456.
[d]Goodall, vol. i. p. 266. Crawford, p. 7.
[e]Melvil, p. 64. Keith, p. 330, 331. Crawford, p. 9.
[f]Melvil, p. 75, 76. Keith, p. 334. Knox, p. 398.
[g]Goodall, vol. i. p. 280. Keith Append. p. 167.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
257
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
[a]Camden, p. 404. Goodall’s Queen Mary, vol. ii. p. 317.
[b]It was imagined, that Henry had been strangled before the house was blown up.
But this supposition is contradicted by the confession of the criminals; and there is no necessity to admit it in order to account for the condition of his body. There are many instances that men’s lives have been saved who had been blown up in ships. Had Henry fallen on water he had not probably been killed.
[c]Melvil, p. 78. Cabbala, p. 136.
[d]Anderson’s Collections, vol. ii. p. 38. vol. iv. p. 167, 168. Spotswood, p. 200.
Keith, p. 374.
[e]Keith, p. 372. Anderson, vol. ii. p. 3.
[i]Anderson, vol. i. p. 38, 40, 50, 52.
[m]Keith, p. 375. Anderson, vol. i. p. 52.
[n]Keith, p. 376. Anderson, vol. ii. p. 106. Spotswood, p. 201.
[o]Spotswood, p. 201. Anderson, vol. i., p. 113.
[p]Keith, p. 375. Anderson, vol. ii. p. 93. Spotswood, p. 201.
[q]Keith, p. 78. Crawford, p. 14.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
258
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
[NOTE [I]]
Mary herself confessed, in her instructions to the ambassadors, whom she sent to France, that Bothwel persuaded all the noblemen, that their application in favour of his marriage was agreeable to her, Keith, p. 389. Anderson, vol. i. p. 94.
Murray afterwards produced to queen Elizabeth’s commissioners a paper signed by Mary, by which she permitted them to make this application to her. This permission was a sufficient declaration of her intentions, and was esteemed equivalent to a command. Anderson, vol. iv. p. 59. They even asserted, that the house, in which they met, was surrounded with armed men. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 141.
[x]Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 61.
[z]Spotswood, p. 203. Anderson, vol. ii. p. 280.
[a]Spotswood, p. 203. Melvil, p. 82.
[b]Keith, p. 392. Digges, p. 14.
[c]Melvil, p. 82. Keith, p. 402. Anderson, vol. i. p. 128, 134.
[d]Crawford, p. ii. Keith, Pref. p. 9.
[f]Keith, p. 402. Spotswood, p. 207.
[h]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 165, 166, &c.
[k]Melvil, p. 84. The reality of this letter appears somewhat disputable; chiefly
because Murray and his associates never mentioned it in their accusation of her before queen Elizabeth’s commissioners.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
259
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
[s]Melvil, p. 85. Spotswood, p. 211. Anderson, vol. iii. p. 19.
[u]Ibid, p. 440. Append. p. 150.
[x]Melvil, p. 87, Keith, p. 445.
[y]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 206, & seq.
[z]Buchanan, lib. xviii, c. 53.
[b]Ibid. p. 463. Cabala, p. 141.
[d]Keith, p. 473. in the notes. Anderson, vol. iv. p. 26.
[e]Jebb’s Collection, vol. i. p. 420.
[g]Anderson, vol. iv. p. 54, 66, 82, 83, 86.
[l]Ibid. p. 11, 12, 13, 109, 110.
[m]Anderson, vol. iv. p. 54, 71, 72, 74, 78, 92.
[n]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 40.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
260
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
[o]Ibid. 14, 15, &c. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 110.
[p]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 52. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 128. Haynes, p. 478.
[q]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 64, & seq. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 144.
[r]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 60, & seq. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 162.
[s]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 45. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 127.
[t]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 47, 48. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 159.
[u]Crawford, p. 92. Melvil, p. 94, 95. Haynes, p. 574.
[w]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 77.
[x]Ibid. 57, 77. State Trials, vol. i. p. 76.
[y]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 55. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 130.
[z]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 99.
[a]Ibid. p. 95. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 177, 179.
[c]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 115, & seq. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 206.
[d]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 122. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 208.
[e]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 125, & seq. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 184, 211, 217.
[f]Lesley’s Negociations in Anderson, vol. iii. p. 25. Haynes, p. 487.
[NOTE [J]]
Mary’s complaint of the queen’s partiality in admitting Murray to a conference was a mere pretext in order to break off the conference. She indeed employs that reason in her order for that purpose (see Goodall, vol. ii. p. 184), but in her private letter, her commissioners are directed to make use of that order to prevent her honour from being attacked, Goodall, vol. ii. p. 183. It was therefore the accusation only she was afraid of. Murray was the least obnoxious of all her enemies: He was abroad when her subjects rebelled and reduced her to captivity: He had only accepted of the regency, when voluntarily proffered him by the nation. His being admitted to queen Elizabeth’s presence was therefore a very bad foundation for a quarrel, or for breaking off the conference; and was plainly a mere pretence.
[h]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 147. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 233.
[i]Anderson, vol. ii, p. 115. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 1.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
261
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
[k]Anderson, vol. ii. part 2. p. 165, &c. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 243.
[l]Anderson, vol. ii. p. 192. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 76.
[m]Anderson, vol. ii. part 2. p. 135, 139. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 224.
[n]Anderson, vol. iv. part 2. p. 139, 145. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 228.
[NOTE [K]]
We shall not enter into a long discussion concerning the authenticity of these letters: We shall only remark in general, that the chief objections against them are, that they are supposed to have passed through the earl of Morton’s hands, the least scrupulous of all Mary’s enemies; and that they are, to the last degree, indecent, and even somewhat inelegant, such as it is not likely she would write. But to these presumptions we may oppose the following considerations. (1.) Though it be not difficult to counterfeit a subscription, it is very difficult, and almost impossible, to counterfeit several pages, so as to resemble exactly the hand-writing of any person.
These letters were examined and compared with Mary’s hand-writing, by the English privy-council, and by a great many of the nobility, among whom were several partizans of that princess. They might have been examined by the bishop of Ross, Herreis, and others of Mary’s commissioners. The regent must have expected, that they would be very critically examined by them: And had they not been able to stand that test, he was only preparing a scene of confusion to himself. Bishop Lesly expressly declines the comparing of the hands, which he calls no legal proof, Goodall, vol. ii. p. 389. (2.) The letters are very long, much longer than they needed to have been, in order to serve the purposes of Mary’s enemies; a circumstance, which encreased the difficulty, and exposed any forgery the more to the risk of detection.
