« PreviousContinue »
not for breach of promise, which they never ventured to insinuate, as no promise was ever made, but for manifest partiality as they could not answer to the calumnies (of which she was fully aware) unless she were there in person. In her intercepted letters to her partisans in Scotland, she informs them indeed, that the conference was broken upon account of Elizabeth's breach of promise, “ not to permit the Earl of Murray to come to her presence afoir the conference was endit, and mairover ther suld be nothing don to the prejudice of Mary's honour, estate, or right." Haynes, 504. But the whole letter is filled with the most extravagant fictions, and as the last promise, for the preservation of her honour, is certainly false, so the first is refuted by the uniform silence of her commissioners at the confer. ence. It appears from Haynes (490) that the commissioners for the Queen of Scots, and the regent and his assistants, being called to the queen's majesty, her highness thought good to join more in commission to the former commissioners. Murray was admitted therefore as a commissioner, as the queen's were also admitted, to consent to the commission being enlarged, and transferred to Westminster. Anderson, iii. 25. The complaint of partiality, therefore, because he obtained an audience before the conferences were renewed, was a mere pretext, not employed to prevent the renewal of the conferences, but reserved to prevent the accusation, or the evidence, against the queen. Hume, v. 141, note K. 497.
No. XVIII. Vol. I. Page 186.
IT was from the Minutes of this day's proceedings in Mary's register, that Tytler ventured to give Hume the lie, (page 45. first edit.) for which he was afterwards so severely reprehended. Tytler, in his subsequent editions, has softened and almost suppressed the charge ; but it is observable that, when he accused Hume of falsehood, he durst not give a full and entire quotation of the minute itself. After Mary's commissioners had shown their instructions, for answering the accusation, and “ desyrit the Quenis Majestie to cause thame have sic writingis as wer producit aganis thair maistres, be thair Maistres's adversaris,” he suppresses the context, " And adhering to the protestations maid be thame of befoir, and upon the conditiounis containit in thair writingis, thair maistres wald mak answer thairto.” Goodall, ii. 282. Their former protestations were those of the 25th of November and 3d of December, to answer to nothing touching her honour: the conditions contained in their instructions or writings, which Tytler has also omitted, were, “ that the presence of our gude Sister, be permitted us to declair the justice of our cause to herself and no uther, not having consented to the assembly and convention of commissioners to uther effect, than to inform them of the veritie; (id. 284.) and Tytler, in his abstract of the Conferences (i. 136-70.) conceals throughout, that Mary refused to answer, unless admitted in person before Elizabeth, contrary, as Hume observes, to her practice during the whole course of the conference, till the moment the evidence of her
being an accomplice in the murder of her husband was unexpectedly produced. Hume, v. note N. In the proceedings of the 7th of January, the same conditions are silently introduced, “ that she wald answer, &c. conform to the writingis presented of befoir in her name," and under these reservations, not to answer to matters touching her honour, nor to any other but Elizabeth in person, she demands inspection or copies of the letters, (Goodall, ii. 297.) which Tytler maintains throughout, were unconditionally refused.
No. XIX. Vol. I. Page 246. From Mr. James Melvile's Life; MS. « THAT September (1582) in time of vacance, my uncle Mr. Andrew, Mr. Thomas Buchanan and I, hearing that Mr. George Buchanan was weak, and his history under the press, passed over to Edinburgh anes errand to visite him, and to see the wark. When we came to his chamber, we fand him sitting in his chair, teaching his young man that served him in his chamber, to spell a b ab, e b eb, &c. After salutation, Mr. Andrews sayes, I see, sir, you are not idle. Better this, quoth he, nor steiling sheep, or sitting idle, whilk is als ill. Thereafter, he shewed us the epistle dedicatory to the king; the whilk when Mr. Andrew had read, he tauld him that it was obscure in some places, and wanted certain words to perfect the sentence. Sayes he, I may do na mair, for thinking on another matter. What is that? says Mr. Andrew. To die, quoth he. He was telBut I leave that and manie ma things to you to help.” also of
ling him « We went from him to the printers warkhouse, wood's anwhom we fand at the end of the 17th book of his chroni- swer to his cle, at a place whilk we thought very hard for the time, Jure Regni. whilk might be an occasion of staying the haill wark, anent the burial of Davie. Therefor, staying the printer from proceeding, we came to Mr. George again, and found him bedfast by bis custome; and asking him how he did? Even going the way of weil-fare, says he. Mr. Thomas his cousin shows him of the hardness of that place of his storie, that the king would be offended with it, and it might stay all the wark. Tell me, man, says he, giff I have tauld the truth? Yes, says Mr. Thomas, Sir, I think sa. I will bide his fead and all
his kins then, quoth he. Pray to God for me, and let him direct all. Sa, be the printing of his chronicle was ended, that maist learned, wise and godly man ended this mortal life."
Bychanan's dedication of his history to James is dated August 28th; this visit was early in September, and as Buchanan died on the 28th of that month, the history, if printed, was certainly not published before his death. According to Melvil's MS., the printing was just finished with his life, and his final repentance must have happened in the interval, between the visit and his death. His Detection was an anonymous pamphlet, easily disavowed, had he been so inclined. But that he had frequently lamented to James, those calumnies in the Detection which he has transcribed verbatim in his history; that he wished, when it was too late, to retráct those caluinnies in his history, which at that moment were under the
but which he was afraid to retract lest it should be ascribed to dotage; are obvious, and incoherent fictions to conceal his impenitence, or his refusal, perhaps, to suppress any part of his writings when required by James. The information received by Thuanus, that he was required by James, but refused, to retract what he had written of Mary, is confirmed by his traditionary answer ; “ Tell him I am going to a place where few kings can come.” Mackenzie's Lives of Scottish Writers, iii. 180. Bayle's Dict. The king, in consequence of the Raid of Ruthven, (August 23d) was detained at Perth; but Lennox remained at Edinburgh till September 5th ; (Calderwood, iii. 151;) and hïs earnest application to Gourie, two months afterwards, for the original letters from Mary to Bothwell, (Robertson, ii. 381.) renders it not improbable that he made a similar application from the king to Buchanan before his death. Ruddiman in his Ani