Introduction

Calendar of State Papers, Scotland: Volume 4, 1571-74. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1905.

This premium content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

'Introduction', in Calendar of State Papers, Scotland: Volume 4, 1571-74, (London, 1905) pp. ix-xxix. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/scotland/vol4/ix-xxix [accessed 24 March 2024]

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

INTRODUCTION.

We are now in possession of the principal historical documents relating to Scotland up to the end of June 1574. As far as the historical importance of the documents printed in this, the fourth, volume of the Calendar of Scottish Papers is concerned, it is not the intention of the Editor to enter into any elaborate review; and once again he is desirous of pointing out that he himself avoids all unnecessary expressions of sympathy or otherwise for one party or the other, or for any particular individual during the tragic events which it has been his duty to place before the reader.

The Calendar commences with a document, dated 1st October 1571, (fn. 1) setting forth the demands of the King of Scots' party for the siege train and soldiers which they considered necessary for the reduction of Edinburgh Castle. On 2nd October Elizabeth (fn. 2) writes to the Earl of Mar informing him that she "is right glad" that the choice has been so good as to name him Regent, for surely she thinks none could have been named more plausible to that nation nor meeter for the charge.

In the same letter she informs the new Regent that she has lately discovered such "pernicious practices" of the Queen of Scots, that she is fully resolved not to deal any further in her favour to have any rule by her means, to the prejudice of her son's estate, assuring herself of the favour of the Almighty. It will be remembered that, as long as six months before this letter was written to Mar, no man under Elizabeth's rule dared to utter a word openly in favour of the woman on whose shoulders she considered the entire responsibility of the murder at Kirk o' Field rested.

Mary's existence was very far from being made happier by the discovery of Ridolfi's plot. Elizabeth's orders for the restraint of her and her attendants were duly carried out, and on 25th October (fn. 3) Shrewsbury writes, "I will be no less careful over my charge than I am bound to her majesty," and trusts her majesty shall find her safely kept against all her majesty's enemies. That Shrewsbury's promise to Elizabeth was kept is evident. He was determined that, as far as it was possible for him to prevent it, no correspondence should pass between Mary and her supporters. On the 29th (fn. 4) Mary writes to Elizabeth that the extreme severity with which, by her orders, she is used, convinces her of being esteemed as an enemy. A letter in cipher, dated 7th November, from Mary to Monsieur De La Mothe Fénélon, gives full details of the faithful performance of Elizabeth's orders to Shrewsbury. Her people were not permitted to go beyond the gate of Sheffield Castle; Shrewsbury's servants were prohibited from speaking to hers; she is threatened and confined to her chamber, the windows of which they wish again to wall up; Shrewsbury, as a great favour, said he was willing she should take an airing on the leads of the Castle; she is resolved to die Queen of Scotland; is a miserable captive.

On 13th November (fn. 5) she again writes to De La Mothe Fénélon pointing out the danger of his letters falling into the hands of her captors, and telling him that she does not see appearance of any good treatment. She also expresses much anxiety at not having news of those in the Tower. In a letter dated 18th November (fn. 6) she complains that air and exercise are forbidden her.

Writing to the Bishop of Ross on 22nd November (fn. 7), in answer to a letter of his delivered to her by Shrewsbury, she indicates that she does not understand his discourse. "It is Esau's hand and Jacob's voice," she says, and remits the answers to certain points to a more convenient time than during their detention in prison.

Two letters of Mary's in cipher, dated 10th December, (fn. 8) one to Grange and the other to Lord Seton, show that the Duke of Alva had granted 10,000 crowns for the urgent necessities of the Castilians.

On Christmas Day 1571 (fn. 9) Mary wrote a long letter to Elizabeth rebuking her for disdaining to answer her letter, and again laying before her the wrongs she had done her, the justice of her cause, and the integrity of her deportment, and assuring her that she had fulfilled all her promises made to Lord Burghley and Sir Walter Mildmay when they were at Chatsworth. For years she has done nothing but complain that Elizabeth refused her support. Her intention was sincere to her, and she prays God to direct her to take advice to His glory, her honour, the public utility, and for her discharge. This letter is written in Mary's own hand, and bears evident traces of her deep emotion —indeed, it is stated, and not without reasonable evidence, that some of the stains were caused by her tears falling on it. Is it possible that some of Elizabeth's tears are mingled with them? The only solution that can be given to this question is, the Editor believes, to study the draft of the memoir, (fn. 10) written in Burghley's hand, dated 1st February 1571–2. This memoir the Earl of Shrewsbury! was to declare to her, "or cause the same to be read to her once or twice, or oftener, as she shall require it." Shrewsbury himself read this memoir to her (fn. 11) twice. He does not need "to recite her sly answers." (fn. 12) Mr. Chancellor (Sir Walter Mildmay) was present when he read it, and, no doubt, gave an account of the matter to Elizabeth.

We are, fortunately, in possession of Mary's answer (fn. 13) to the memoir, couched in terms of equal dignity. This answer is dated 14th February, and is of great length. She has been refused a copy of the memoir signed by the hand of the Queen of England. One of her requests every day to God is to strengthen her in her afflictions; she has not ceased to search for reasonable means to content the Queen of England; the accusers to whom the Queen of England has wished to give ear were falsities and imposters; she never wished to maintain the Earl of Bothwell in tyranny: whereas the Queen of England says she protected her from an ignominious death, she thanks God, who alone extricated her out of the hands of her rebels, and, after having given Him thanks, she thanks the King of France, who bestowed good presents and good treatment on the Earl of Murray, taking assurance and promise from him that nothing would be attempted against the Queen, his sovereign; she is not an ungrateful Princess; the Queen of England reproaches her with the expense of her detention, but that has only been the diet for herself and a small number of servants; the "benefits" on the part of the Queen of England are unjust detention and imprisonment with indignity! She would feel herself to be for ever reputed ungrateful if she did not employ all the means that God permits to mitigate the anger of the Queen of England towards the Duke of Norfolk and the other Lords who have borne such goodwill to her.

Shrewsbury returned to Sheffield from London, where he had been attending the Duke of Norfolk's trial, on 5th February, (fn. 14) bringing with him authority to relax the confinement placed on Mary, and in his letter to Burghley of 18th February (fn. 15) he mentions that she has now walked abroad since his coming home.

Elizabeth and Burghley were informed by Shrewsbury on 28th February (fn. 16) that one Morgan, a servant of Shrewsbury's, and various persons were concerned in sending intelligence to Mary.

Shrewsbury did not fail to keep watch for any persons. He has, he says, in a letter dated 9th March, "bolted forth" her carriers of letters as far as Carlisle, and some are fled. (fn. 17)

Letters written by Shrewsbury to Burghley on 4th and 6th April 1572 (fn. 18) mention that Mary had a return of "her old disease" and was discontented; and again the same writer, on the 22nd, says that she is now in her melancholy disease, and seems to despair of life.

On the 30th (fn. 19) Mary writes to Elizabeth asking to be allowed to have some apparel, and for permission to go to Buxton, which she thinks would give ease to her arm and side, with which she is very much tormented.

The charges made against Mary by Elizabeth were drawn up in April 1572 under the title of "Five causes showed against the Queen of Scots." (fn. 20)

The news of the Duke of Norfolk's execution on 2nd June 1572 caused Mary to fall into "a passion of sickness" by grief, (fn. 21) Shrewsbury reports to Burghley on 10th June. On the same day (fn. 22) she writes to Burghley telling him that she had heard "the unpleasant news" which Shrewsbury said he had required him to impart to her.

The trial of the Duke of Norfolk, the revelations made public upon that occasion, and various other matters tended very much to injure Mary's cause. She was deserted by many of her friends in England. On 20th May the Lords Spiritual openly advocated the execution of the Queen of Scots.

Lord De La Warr, Sir Ralph Sadleir, Doctor Wilson, Master of Requests, and the Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Bromley, were sent by Elizabeth on 11th June 1572 (fn. 23) to examine Mary with regard to her transactions with Ridolfi. One of the documents (fn. 24) brought down by these commissioners, and dated the same day as the Commission, sets forth in detail the points which the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of England required Elizabeth to consent to and order against her. Shrewsbury is to join with the commissioners, and to treat with her. Mary's answers (fn. 25) to the questions put to her by the English Parliament were ready on 17th June, after a protestation (fn. 26) on her part that she would submit to no jurisdiction of the Queen of England nor acknowledge her deputies, otherwise than in such manner as one free Prince is accustomed to do to another. She further prays that she may answer the point contained in the third article in the Parliament of England. (fn. 27)

Shrewsbury mentions in a letter to Burghley, dated 7th July 1572, (fn. 28) that he brought Mary to a stand near his house where she saw four or five courses, in order that Monsieur d'Ardoye, who had brought letters to her, should not be ignorant that she had liberty to walk; and on the 9th (fn. 29) he declared to her at large the Queen's majesty's "clemency and most honourable favour showed towards her."

It is not till 10th October 1572 (fn. 30) that we can gather, from these documents, with the exception of Sir Ralph Sadleir's letters hereafter noticed, any further information with regard to Mary's life at Sheffield; and on that occasion Shrewsbury merely mentions that she complains of sickness by reason of her restraint of liberty in walking abroad.

In a letter to Leicester and Burghley, on 24th December 1572, (fn. 31) Mary merely complains of not receiving as ample answer as she looked for from Elizabeth, and thanks them for their pains.

Shrewsbury, writing to Burghley the same day, (fn. 32) remarks, upon some warning given to him with regard to his continual attendance at Sheffield, that he was persuaded Elizabeth never had so much as one doubtful thought of his care or due regard to his charge, "neither will I live to deserve her less trust and good opinion than she already has conceived, and your lordship last wrote to me of," and adds that he has often wished for admonition beforehand.

What news, if any, Mary received of the state of affairs at Edinburgh during the greater part of the siege, we have no means of ascertaining, until the 7th of June 1573, (fn. 33) when Shrewsbury informs Burghley that he let her know the state of Edinburgh Castle; not well pleased with which, she said he never brought her any good, and willed him to keep the like news to himself from henceforth. When he told her she had cause to like the Queen's majesty's consideration of her son by seeking the recovery of Edinburgh Castle, she said no thanks were due to her for helping her son to annoy her. (fn. 34) Shrewsbury's opinion was that "it nips her very near."

Two other holograph letters of Mary's only remain to be noticed; one, dated 8th November 1573, (fn. 35) to Monsieur De La Mothe Fénélon acknowledging some letters she had received from him, and hoping that he will be able to demonstrate her innocence; the other, dated 16th January 1573–4, (fn. 36) to Elizabeth, expressing a hope that she will no more find her ear deaf to her entreaties.

The discovery of Ridolfi's conspiracy put an end to all hope of aid from Spain for Mary's party.

The "State Papers, Scotland," give most interesting and minute details of passing events. Numerous letters from Drury, Randolph, and Killigrew have been calendared at considerable length in order that no point whatever may be omitted that might elucidate the state of affairs in Scotland.

The two factions in Scotland—the one upholding the Queen of Scots, and the other that of James VI. and his Regents—were face to face before Edinburgh Castle.

Mar was besieging the Castle with his own followers. Assistance in the form of money had been forthcoming from the Queen of England from time to time, which enabled him to pay the soldiers.

On the 16th of November 1571 (fn. 37) Hunsdon, writing to Burghley from Berwick, tells him that they of the Castle are given to understand that, although the Queen makes this show of setting up the King, she will neither be at the charge nor send any men thither this winter. Elizabeth's intention was to make an attempt to induce the two factions to agree, and at the end of 1571 Hunsdon and Drury were in correspondence with Maitland and Grange in hope of winning them over to maintain James VI. These negotiations failed. Civil war raged throughout the country. Adam Gordon in the North and Farnyhurst on the Borders were left entirely to pursue their own course.

Hunsdon always despaired of any agreement between the two factions, and on 27th November (fn. 38) he informs Burghley of the number of forces necessary for reducing the Castle. The next day he writes to Elizabeth, "your majesty is now driven to use force, and the sooner your majesty begins, the sooner and better end you shall have of it, and thereby prevent such forces and aid as they look for."

On 14th December 1571 (fn. 39) Hunsdon informs Burghley that daily conference takes place between the King's side and the Castle, and sundry practices are used to bring them to accord without the Queen's majesty.

At the close of 1571 Elizabeth was still unresolved how to proceed with regard to Scottish matters. (fn. 40) Hunsdon tells her he has left nothing undone with them of the Castle that was in his instructions, and that she will never bring them to accord by fair means. (fn. 41)

Maitland reminds Burghley, on 3rd January 1571–2, (fn. 42) that he has for a long time ceased to correspond with him, and when it will please him to renew the correspondence he will think himself the more assured of the continuance of his goodwill. At the same time he honestly objects to promising more than he has a mind to perform.

During January 1571–2 attempts were again made to bring the two factions to agreement, the documents in connection with which are advice given by Elizabeth, (fn. 43) articles by Maitland and Grange, (fn. 44) and various letters.

Drury and Randolph arrived at Berwick on the 10th of February 1571–2, (fn. 45) where they received from Lord Hunsdon, as commissioners from Elizabeth to Mar, a memorial of such things as were to be observed in the pacification which it was now hoped to bring about.

Their first letter is dated 23rd February, from Leith, (fn. 46) to Leicester and Burghley. They have dealt somewhat with either party; they find Scotland in great calamity and misery—thefts, murders, spoils unmerciful, the execration of the people upon the causers, and prayers to the Queen's majesty to be their deliverer.

The detailed account sent to Hunsdon by these two commissioners, the same day, (fn. 47) is a document of deep interest; especially the conference with Maitland and Grange in the Council Chamber in Edinburgh Castle. Chatelherault, Huntly, "full of malice against his enemies"; Lord Hume, "led as Lethington lists"; Lord Seton, "malicious, vain, despiteful—neither honest nor reasonable"; two worthy prelates; and Farnyhurst, "fretting and fuming for his last defeat—more proud than witty or reasonable," were present to hear Elizabeth's declaration. Maitland, by reason of his infirmity, sat; the others stood.

Monsieur Le Croc was appointed special ambassador to Scotland by Charles IX. in March, but was prevented from proceeding thither till May 1572, when he and Drury, who was associated with him, proceeded to negotiate between the two parties, with the result that, on 30th July the same year, an Abstinence was concluded for two months. (fn. 48)

It fell to the lot of Randolph and Drury, during the exercise of their commission, to negotiate with Mar for the delivery of the Earl of Northumberland, who had been in captivity since the early days of 1570, under the custody of the Laird of Lochleven, and on the 1st of April 1572 Hunsdon was able to inform Elizabeth (fn. 49) that the Earl and rebels should be at her commandment, on condition that the Laird of Lochleven and Lord Lindsay were paid for keeping them. In spite of this promise, three of the English rebels were set at liberty by Lord Lindsay. (fn. 50) £2000 was the least sum demanded by Lochleven (fn. 51) for Northumberland; which sum was paid by Hunsdon, and the Earl was delivered to him on 29th May 1572. (fn. 52) Northumberland remained at Berwick for some weeks, where he opened his mind freely to Hunsdon, taking the entire responsibility of the rebellion on himself, but seemed to think more of sport than the unsafe position he was in. The details of his fate are too well known to require repetition here: sufficient to say that he was executed at York on the 22nd of August following.

The Abstinence before mentioned was signed by Mar, Morton, Ruthven, Boyd, and James Macgill, for James VI.'s party, and by Chatelherault, Huntly, Hume, Fleming, and Grange on behalf of Mary's party. (fn. 53) In case the assembled nobility, at the end of the two months, could not conclude a final peace, the King of France and the Queen of England were accepted as arbitrators. (fn. 54) Certain persons, named, were excepted out of the pacification, the town of Edinburgh was to be set at liberty, and provision was made for the reduction of the Castle garrison.

Complaints were made by Maitland and Grange during the Abstinence that the King's party were not acting honestly, and that they were foully betrayed. (fn. 55) On the other hand, Maitland wrote a letter to Mary on the 10th of August following, explaining the desperate straits the garrison had been in previous to the Abstinence, the brutality of the King's party, who had hanged women with child, and that she must provide in same way for the safety of the Castle and furnishing of it. If the French had played their part, he adds, it had long since put this matter out of play. She must provide money with diligence, "for so long as the Castle is preserved the cause will not perish."

After three weeks of the Abstinence had passed, Maitland and Grange received the news of the massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day from James Kirkaldy, Grange's brother, who was in Paris at the time, and "had hard saving" of his life. (fn. 56)

Upon learning the news of the massacre of the Huguenots, Elizabeth determined to send Henry Killigrew, Burghley's nephew, to Scotland, and, accordingly, instructions were drawn up of what he was to declare to the Scottish nobles of both parties. (fn. 57) On 5th September the Bishop of London suggested that Mary's head should be forthwith cut off; (fn. 58) and another letter, (fn. 59) from an anonymous hand, urges her extermination in words of indescribable frenzy.

Henry Killigrew arrived at Leith on or about the 14th of September, (fn. 60) after visiting Morton at Tantallon, where he had lain sick.

The most important matter with which Killigrew was entrusted was not mentioned in the "Instructions" of the latter end of August. (fn. 61) This secret document, dated 10th September 1572, (fn. 62) instructs him to deal with the King's party and the others of the Castle for the better observation of the Abstinence, and to point out that the continuance of the Queen of Scots in England is dangerous both for the person of the Queen of England and for her State and realm, and that it is desirable to hand her over to the Scots to receive what she deserved there by order of justice. So secret was this document kept that Killigrew must have left without a copy of it, or, perhaps, it was too unsafe to hazard such matters in writing about the person of a special messenger travelling to Berwick. He arrived at Berwick on 11th September (fn. 63) with the instructions of 10th September given to him by the lips of his sovereign.

By the death of Mar on the 28th of October 1572—some suggest by poison—the Regency was again vacant, and the "great matter" that Killigrew had in hand could not proceed till his successor was elected.

The Convention for the choice of a Regent assembled on the 15th of November 1572, (fn. 64) and, shortly after, Morton was elected. The Abstinence had been prolonged for two months. On the 10th of December 1572 (fn. 65) Killigrew writes to Burghley, "these abstinences serve the Castilians but to drive time," and that Grange had confessed to receiving 2000 crowns and looked for more daily.

The Abstinence was broken on the 1st of January 1572–3, (fn. 66) and a declaration was drawn up the same day by the King's party showing how matters had proceeded during the late Abstinence, and how, by the default of the withholders of Edinburgh Castle, the war was renewed.

The Earl of Huntly and the Hamiltons submitted to the King's authority on the 23rd of February (fn. 67) following, at Perth; the terms of which submission are contained in a long document, subscribed by Argyll, Huntly, Montrose, Ruthven, Boyd, the Commendator of Dunfermline, and Sir John Bellenden, the King's commissioners, and Huntly and Lord John Hamilton. Killigrew, at the same time, gave his written promise for Huntly and the Hamiltons that they would keep the pacification. (fn. 68)

A copy of a letter from Maitland and Grange to Huntly, (fn. 69) dated the same day, shows how they appealed to him not to desert them. He is told that Elizabeth dare not meddle openly in the matter of Scotland for fear of provoking France. James Kirkaldy informs them that France will not spare expense to preserve the Castilians. He that sent the money by James Kirkaldy has money enough behind to help.

Maitland and Grange appear to have thought that Elizabeth and the English Council might have been flattered into holding back the forces they had determined to send to assist in taking Edinburgh Castle. Their long letter to Killigrew on 2nd March 1572–3, (fn. 70) in which they mention that they understand that men and battering pieces are to be sent, contains no dangerous outburst of passion or defiance, no sentimentalism. They are sorry for this determination; if they have begun the war, let them be contemned; Morton has intruded himself into a usurped authority over Scotland; if they have killed any of Elizabeth's men, if they have spoiled her people, and, being required to reform such enormities, have refused, then may she justly plague them with war.

The conclusion of negotiations with the Castilians, which took place on the 27th of March 1573, owing to the answer delivered by Maitland and Grange to Elizabeth's messenger, (fn. 71) was followed almost immediately by open hostility. Drury was appointed to take the command of the English army to besiege the Castle. The force arrived on the 17th of April, and on the 25th, the date of the arrival of the ordnance, the Castle was summoned for the last time to surrender within six hours. Lord Seton had sent word to the Castilians that they should hold out, for their aid was nearer at hand than they were aware of; a fugitive also confirmed "that they boast upon aid by the third Sunday in May." (fn. 72) Thereupon a flag was set on the height of the Castle with the Scottish Queen's arms thereon, and an answer given that they would keep the Castle for Queen Mary until Michaelmas, although all Scotland and half England had sworn the contrary. Morton promised on his honour to offer himself to the assault, if it came to that.

On the 27th of April a Parliament was held in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh for choosing Lords of Articles, at which Morton and the chief of the nobility of the King's party were present, and another on the 30th.

A roll of the names of those within the Castle, both "rag and tag," was sent to Leicester on the 2nd of May. (fn. 73) There is a letter written by Grange to Drury on the 8th of May requesting liberty for his sister, Lady Colluthy, to pass out of the Castle to a house in the town; (fn. 74) which was refused, because the Regent misliked it.

Thomas Cecil, Burghley's eldest son, arrived at Edinburgh on the night of the 11th of May, whose presence, Killigrew reports to Burghley, is comfortable both to the English and Scottish. He said he came to learn to be a soldier and not an ambassador. Hubbard, a miner who accompanied Drury's army, had wrought himself under the ground, as far as the Spur, on the 13th, (fn. 75) and on the same day sixteen pieces of battery were in their places. At one o'clock in the afternoon of the 17th some of the pieces "began to speak such language that it made both them in the Castle think more of God than they did before," Killigrew is sure, (fn. 76) and all the pieces of battery were planted, saving six cannons for the main battery. On the following day Drury is able to report to Burghley that they had had good success by discharging 34 demi-cannons into David's Tower and other parts, when great cries were made by the women, and the soldiers who showed themselves, displaying two ensigns, were driven from the top of the Tower, that they durst not once look out or show themselves. Afterwards he caused three demi-cannons to be levelled at such part of the Castle where he judged they would gather in the night, "which fell in the place they wished." (fn. 77)

Killigrew himself became a pioneer on the occasion of some "hot shooting" from the Castle which had hindered Drury's ordnance from battering. (fn. 78) A great part of David's Tower fell on the 23rd, and on the 26th the Spur was scaled and captured. All the Castle defences were now in hopeless piles of ruins; there was no longer any hope of holding out; no aid had appeared from France. Grange and Robert Melville obtained permission to talk with Killigrew and Drury between the Spur and the Castle, the parley lasting for more than two hours; the result of which was that the Castle party promised to send the next day the conditions upon which they would surrender the Castle. The conditions proposed by them were not accepted by the Regent, and his own conditions were thereupon drawn up. These conditions were, that the Castle, with the ordnance, munitions, plate, jewels, and registers should be given up to the King; and that all persons in the Castle should come forth singly, without armour, and submit to the mercy of the King and Regent, who should be pardoned, except Lord Hume, Grange, William Maitland, John Maitland, the Bishop of Dunkeld, Robert Logan, Laird of Restalrig, Robert Melville of Murdocairny, Alexander Creichton, Laird of Drylaw, Henry Echlin, Laird of Pittadro, James Mosman, and James Cocky, who were to be kept by the Regent till the Queen of England determined how they should be used, according to the agreement made between the English and Scottish commissioners.

The soldiers were permitted to bring out their own baggage. (fn. 79) Nine o'clock the same evening was the limit of the time appointed for an answer. From the tone of these conditions it was plain that little hope remained for Grange. On the 29th of May Maitland and Grange wrote to Burghley that they had surrendered to the General of the Queen of England's forces and Killigrew. (fn. 80) Their desire was to be used as she pleased, and that Lord Hume, they two, Robert Melville, and some of their friends might live in England.

On the 31st of May Morton wrote to Burghley requesting Elizabeth's speedy advice how the prisoners should be used. (fn. 81) Drury had charge of the prisoners, whom he removed to Leith, and was there awaiting Elizabeth's instructions with regard to them, when Maitland died on the 9th of June 1573. There is a contemporary statement by his bitterest enemy that the fountain of all the mischief departed this life at Leith, "haisting the same him self, as sum hes jugeit"; (fn. 82) and Killigrew states that he died "not without suspicion of poison," (fn. 83) but he himself can say nothing therein.

There is not sufficient space in the limited pages of this Introduction to enter further into the history of this particular man, whose character is of such absorbing interest. Much has been written about him. Mr. Bain gives some interesting remarks with regard to him in the Introduction to the second volume of this series. Sir John Skelton has dealt fully with his political career. A history of his life is given in Chalmers' "Mary Queen of Scots." Maitland was married first to Janet Menteith, and secondly to Mary, daughter of Malcolm, third Lord Fleming.

Grange and his brother, after large offers made on behalf of the former for his life, were hanged on the 3rd of August 1573, together with two goldsmiths who had been found guilty of counterfeiting coin during the siege of the Castle, (fn. 84) Elizabeth having referred the prisoners taken in the Castle to the laws of Scotland. (fn. 85) With the death of this famous man and his companion, Maitland, the cause of Mary Queen of Scots was terminated.

Robert Melville's life was spared at Elizabeth's request, as she knew he had dealt very sincerely with her "when things stood in doubtful terms," which she could not forget. (fn. 86) Melville was detained prisoner by Morton for a year, when he was released. He afterwards took part in many interesting events, one of which was his mission from James VI. to beg Elizabeth to spare Mary's life. On the 1st of April 1616 he was created a Baron of Parliament, and died in 1621, at the advanced age of 94. Some letters of his calendared in this volume will be found of interest. (fn. 87) His long examination on the 19th of October 1573 (fn. 88) with regard to the proposed match between Mary and Don John of Austria, Mary's escape from Lochleven, her jewels, horses, and other things, preserved amongst the Additional Manuscripts in the British Museum, although badly mutilated by damp, and now printed for the first time, gives many interesting details.

The proposal made by Killigrew to the Regent Mar and Morton, on the 9th of October 1572, for the delivering up of Mary to her foes in Scotland was held in abeyance for some time owing to Mar's death and the outbreak once more of hostilities with the Castle. It has been suggested that a passage in a letter from the Regent Morton to Burghley, dated the 26th of June 1573, was an invitation for Elizabeth to renew the negotiations with reference to the "great matter." (fn. 89) However, nothing further on this subject appears amongst the papers calendared in the volume; but in 1574 the matter again arose. This will be dealt with in the next volume.

Mar, after his election to the Regency, had collected a force of 4000 men, and with that force he besieged Edinburgh Castle. With this force he attempted to storm the Castle, but failed. As Regent, Mar was entirely ruled by Morton. No accusation was ever brought against him that he had participated in the murders of Darnley or Rizzio. It was only after long negotiations and persuasions that Mar, unwillingly, gave his consent to the delivering of the Earl of Northumberland to Elizabeth on payment of 2000l. to Sir William Douglas, Laird of Lochleven; at the same time he begged that the Earl's life should be spared. (fn. 90) The money paid to the Laird of Lochleven was ostensibly for the charges of keeping the Earl at Lochleven. Mar declared that his own interest in the money was "very small." (fn. 91)

The Bishop of Ross, it will be remembered, had again been committed to the Tower immediately after his examination before the Council on the 24th of October 1571. Proposals to have him delivered to the King's party in exchange for the Earl of Northumberland were rejected by Elizabeth. Owing to representations from the Court of France, he was removed, in July or August 1572, to Farnham Castle, where he was kept under the custody of the Bishop of Winchester till January 1573–4, when he was released on condition that he left England.

Sir Valentine Browne, writing on the 6th of March 1573–4, (fn. 92) mentions that the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Bishops of Ross and Dunblane, and other workers against the Regency are proclaimed traitors in Scotland. On the 20th of March 1573–4 the Bishop of Ross wrote to Burghley acknowledging his obligation to Elizabeth for her favour and goodness, and inclosed him an oration to be presented to her as a signification of his goodwill and ready mind to do her service. In the same letter he complains that his pension assigned to him by the Queen of Scots has not been paid, and requests Burghley to obtain a passport for his servant to repair to his mistress for the purpose of obtaining payment of the same. There are but few letters from him during the period of his confinement. On the 8th of November 1571 (fn. 93) he wrote to Burghley begging him to forward a letter to Mary, and stating that he hopes to receive further favour and liberty. The next day (fn. 94) he writes to Burghley his answer to certain points concerning the practices of Fitzwilliam and Hawkins, who had been conveying letters between the King of Spain and Mary. On the 20th of December he writes to Cuthbert Reid (fn. 95) asking him to obtain permission from Burghley to come and visit him sometimes, and also to provide some partridges, pheasants, turkeycocks, and other fowls for Christmas. He complains to Burghley, on the 8th of January 1571–2, (fn. 96) that he supposes some sinister information has come to Mary's ears against him, as he has never heard anything from her since his committal to the Tower. He again makes the complaint on the 8th of May 1572 (fn. 97) that he has heard nothing from Mary. Complaint is made by him to Monsieur De La Mothe Fénélon on the 26th of May (fn. 98) that the Lieutenant of the Tower has requested him to pay 5l. a week since his entry into prison for his fare, which amounts to 500 crowns, who is requested to travail with the Lords of the Council to content them, otherwise he must live on pledge, for he has nothing at all to pay with. His forfeited bishopric was given to Lord Methven. (fn. 99)

Sir Ralph Sadleir was appointed by Elizabeth to take Shrewsbury's place at Sheffield Castle during the time he was in attendance at Westminster for the trial of the Duke of Norfolk at the close of the year 1571. (fn. 100) He reports, on the 3rd of January 1571–2, to Burghley (fn. 101) that Shrewsbury and his wife have been very careful of the charge committed to them, and that he had told Mary that the Queen's Majesty had great reason to do more than she did to her; who replied that she knew no such cause, but would arm herself with patience to suffer whatsoever should happen to her. On the 9th of the same month (fn. 102) he mentions, in a letter to Burghley, that this Queen of Scots comes not out of her chamber, where the Countess of Shrewsbury continually visits her and keeps her company, and that he had told her that she was the cause of Elizabeth's strait dealing with her. He also informs him at some length of his conversation with her on the subject of the Duke of Norfolk's practices. Sadleir's suspicion was aroused by the arrival of Cuthbert Reid, the Bishop of Ross's servant, at Sheffield, and in a letter to Burghley of the 11th of January (fn. 103) he describes the precautions which were taken to prevent any information reaching Mary from her friends. A letter to her from the French ambassador was received by the gentleman porter of the Castle and delivered to Sadleir, who tried the spare paper in it with heat and moisture, but could find nothing.

Sadleir's opinion was that as long as the Duke of Norfolk lived, and that there was any hope of his and Mary's liberty, some dangerous and perilous practices would be still attempted, (fn. 104) and he prayed God grant they might have that they deserved, and the sooner the better. He mentions that now, 14th January, Mary sometimes appears in Shrewsbury's dining-chamber, and when the weather is fair she will walk on the leads over her lodging or in the court within the gates. (fn. 105) It would appear that Sadleir himself did not inform Mary of the Duke of Norfolk's condemnation, but gave it out to the gentlemen of the house. (fn. 106) When the news was brought to Mary she wept bitterly, and said she was sure that the Duke fared the worse for what she had of late written to the Queen of England. Sadleir, in the same letter, trusts God will put it into the Queen's Majesty's heart so to provide for herself that such true lovers may receive such reward and fruit of their love as they have justly deserved at her majesty's hands, and states that all the last week she did not once look out of her chamber.

Elizabeth's resolution to maintain James VI. never changed for a moment. It was her unalterable determination that the young King should be preserved. The destruction of his mother was, in the opinion of most of the Bishops and many of the advisers of Elizabeth, the only safe way to accomplish that object. The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day caused many men to open their mouths more freely on that subject. Elizabeth herself was unwilling to give forth the mandate for Mary's execution.

But little information is forthcoming with regard to the private life of James VI. A document drawn up in February 1572–3 (fn. 107) shows that he lived at Stirling Castle with Alexander Erskine as keeper of his person, the Countess of Mar as his governess, and George Buchanan and Peter Young as his instructors in literature and religion. No Earl was to be received into Stirling Castle with more than two servants, no Lord with more than one, and no gentleman but alone, and all without armour or weapons. (fn. 108) On the 1st of June 1573 Henry Killigrew informs Burghley that Mr. Thomas Cecil could not go to see the King, because his Grace was sick of the smallpox. (fn. 109)

A Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 15th of January 1572–3, (fn. 110) at which most of the Scottish nobility, bishops, abbots, and commissioners of burghs were present. Another Parliament met there on the 27th of April following. (fn. 111)

A Survey of the town and castle of Edinburgh was made on the 26th of January 1572–3 by Rowland Johnson and John Fleming, by command of Sir William Drury, for the purposes of the siege. (fn. 112)

Some of the jewels belonging to the King of Scots had fallen into the hands of Sir William Drury and others, mention of which will be found in various documents in the year 1573.

On the 22nd of May 1574 Henry Killigrew was sent to Scotland to ascertain what alteration had happened since his last being there, and particularly whether the Regent Morton continued constant in his affection to Elizabeth. He was also to deliver messages to the Regent with regard to Hume Castle and the proposed league between England and Scotland. (fn. 113)

In June 1574 complaints were made as to the ravages made by English pirates on Scottish ships.

An Appendix (fn. 114) is added to the present volume giving the "Correspondence of the Regent Mar" from a manuscript preserved at His Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh. The dates of the documents calendared in the Appendix comprise the period between [September] 1571 and the 7th of October 1573, and they refer mainly to the maintenance of the peace between England and Scotland. Amongst them are "Instructions" to James Cunningham, who had been sent to the English Court to obtain men, money, and powder from Elizabeth. There are also letters from and to Thomas Randolph, George Buchanan, Hunsdon, Drury, Walsingham, and Sir John Foster, and a copy of the Instructions to Morton, the Commendator of Dunfermline, and James Macgill, who had been appointed commissioners to treat with Lord Hunsdon for Elizabeth's protection of the Protestant religion, her aid for the recovery of Edinburgh Castle, for her forces to resist strangers who might arrive in Scotland, (fn. 115) and the matter of the provision of men and money by Elizabeth for the siege of Edinburgh Castle. There are also two interesting letters from the Countess of Lennox, dated the 4th of October 1571 (fn. 116) and the 20th of November following. (fn. 117)

There are also several letters to and from Lord Hunsdon with reference to Edinburgh Castle.

The Editor has endeavoured to arrange in complete chronological order—a portion of this work which has been most difficult— all the documents which it has been his duty to calendar.

It often occurs that original letters sent by the Queen of England to persons in Scotland, some of which are in the British Museum, bear dates a few days subsequent to the drafts in the Public Record Office, thus causing some confusion. In all these cases the Editor, as a matter of course, has adopted the dates of the latter; but he has also added to the calendar the dates of the British Museum document, as these may prove of the greatest importance.

The Editor desires to thank all those who have so generously given him their advice and assistance in the preparation of the present volume.