AN HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF CHARLES I. KING OF GREAT BRITAIN. CHARLES STUART, second son of James I. king of Great Britain, by Ann ot Denmark, was born at Dumfermling, in Scotland, November the 19th, 1600*. He was baptized on Tuesday December the 23d, in the royal chapel, by David Lindsay, bishop of Ross, with great solemnity, according to Mr. Carte; though other writers give a different account'. Though other writers give a different account.] Calderwood speaks of the birth of prince Charles, but mentions not a word about his baptism. He was born, * Perinchief's Life of Charles I. prefixed to his works, p. 1. fol. Lond. 1687, b Carte's History of England, vol. III, p. 679. fol. Lond. 1752. VOL. II. B At three years old he was committed to the care and government of Sir Robert Cary's lady; and in his fourth year he was brought to the English court, where he was made Knight of the Bath, and invested with says he, upon the 19th of November, about eleven hours at night, the same day that Gowrie and his brother's carcasses were dismembered. Spotswood observes, that 'his christening was hastened because of the weakness of the child, and that his death was much feared. Thus also Perinchief, in the very page referred to in the text, tells us, 'that he was born in so much weakness, that his baptism was hastened, without the usual ceremonies wherewith such royal infants are admitted into the church.' Here are very different accounts, we see, of the baptism of this prince; but which is most worthy of belief must be left to the reader to determine. All I shall say is, that if the young prince had received the benefit of episcopal baptism, (a benefit never sufficiently to be valued, in the opinion of some very grave and learned writers, as it gives special privileges and advantages both here and hereafter) it is amazing that archbishop Spotswood and doctor Perinchief should either have been ignorant of it, or neglected to have mentioned it. But truth is frequently brought to light by time; and Mr. Carte, an hundred and fifty years after the ceremony was performed, tells us the name of the bishop, the solemnity used, and the place where it was used, when all others seem to have a Calderwood's History of the Church of Scotland, p. 446. fol. Edinb. 1680. Lond. 1668. History of the Church of Scotland, p. 461. fol. See Dodwell's Epistolary Discourse concerning the Mortality of Human Souls. 8vo. Lond. 1705. the title of duke of York. The particulars of that solemnity, as they may be acceptable to some readers, I will give in the note". known nothing about it! However, such as have opportunity may consult MS. in Offic. Leon reg; Armor. the authority referred to, in his margin, by Mr. Carte, for it 2. 2 The particulars of that solemnity I will give in the note.] We are indebted to Sir Dudley Carleton for the following account, which was contained in a letter to Mr. Winwood, written from London, Jan. 1604.— 'On Twelfth-day we had the creation of duke Charles, now duke of York: the interim was entertained with making knights of the Bath, which was three days work. They were eleven in number, besides the little * This MS. so pompously quoted by Mr. Carte, is, I apprehend, the same piece which is printed in the Appendix to the Attempt towards the Character of the Royal Martyr King Charles I. Lond. 8vo. 1738, which is said to be copied from a MS. in the Lyon's Office, written by John Blinsele, Ilay-herald, who assisted at the baptism: say, I apprehend Carte's MS. and this to be one and the same thing, because it gives exactly the same account of the pompous baptism of Charles, by David Lindsay, bishop of Ross, with what Carte quotes from his MS. But from the printed account the MS. appears to be an arrant forgery, the work of some ignorant person, who knew not the times of which he was writing, and consequently his work must be mere invention: for he represents the chancellor Cassils as present at the solemnity, though there was no such chancellor then in being; and he tells us, that monsieur de Rohan, a nobleman of Brittany, and his brother, called monsieur de Soubise, were his Majesty's gossips; though the Scotch historians never mention their being in that kingdom. In short, the writer of the account, given in that Appendix, (which yet is but a quota, tion from a book printed at London, 1716, by Mr. Henry Cantrel, called the Royal Martyr a true Christian) evidently appears to have had more zeal for the episcopal baptism of Charles than regard to truth, or even his own character. Authors that invent history, have so many circumstances to consider and provide for, to render their accounts consistent, that they need a far more extensive knowledge than generally falls to the share of such writers, to secure them from detection and contempt. In the sixth year of his age he was com mitted to the tuition of Mr. Thomas Murray, a person well qualified for that office, though duke, all of the king's choice. The solemnity of the creation was kept in the hall, where first the duke was brought in, accompanied with his knights; then carried out again, and brought back by earls in their robes of the Garter. My lord-admiral bare him, two others went as supporters, and six marched before with the ornaments. The patent was read by my lord of Cranborne, and drawn in most eloquent law Latin by Mr. Attorney; but so, that we have a duke of York in title, but not in substance. There was a public dinner in the great chamber, where there was one table for the duke and his earls assistants, another for his fellowknights of the Bath. At night we had the queen's mask in the banquetting house, or rather her pagent. There was a great engine at the lower end of the room, which had motion, and in it were the images of seahorses, with other terrible fishes, which were ridden by Moors. The indecorum was, that there was all fish and no water. At the further end was a great shell in form of a skallop, wherein were four seats. On the lowest sat the queen, with my lady Bedford; on the rest were placed the ladies Suffolk, Darby, Rich, Effingham, Ann Herbert, Susan Herbert, Elizabeth Howard, Walsingham, and Bevil. Their apparel was rich, but too light and curtezan-like for such great ones. Instead of vizards, their faces and arms, up to the elbows, were painted black, which disguise was sufficient; for they were hard to be known: but it became them nothing so well as their red and white; and you cannot imagine a more ugly sight, than a troop of lean-cheeked Moors. The Spanish and Venetian ambassadors were both pre |