of Leicester, probably by Elizabeth's directions, addressed a letter to James, in which, though clothed in the most Jesuitical language, he points out the worldly advantages which would accrue to him by submitting quietly to his mother's execution, and even indirectly asks his concurrence. To any other monarch but James, the insolence and bad taste of such an epistle would have been intolerable. "She is the person and prince in this world," says the earl, speaking of Elizabeth, "that may do you most good or most harm; let no persuasion or desire let you think otherwise."* And again Lord Hudson writes to him after the fatal blow had been struck, offering to procure a declaration, signed by all the judges in England, that the execution of his mother could in no way interfere with his legitimate claims.

We are informed, though the authority is questionable, that when Henry the Fourth sent his ambassador, Sully to James, inviting him to join with him against Elizabeth, by which means he might satisfy his revenge, the young king answered, that he was unwilling to fall out with the Queen of England, for his mother's death had left him more secure on the throne than ever.f The Scottish nobles were greatly disgusted at the indifference of their young prince. Instead of appearing in mourning, as had been ordered by the king, Lord Sinclair presented himself at court in full armour, as the garb best suited to the occasion.f

It has been already remarked, that in his mother's extremity, James had applied to the principal ministers of religion to remember her in their prayers. This order, with the exception of his own chaplains, and a Mr. David Lindsay, the minister at Leith, was universally disobeyed. James, indeed, was treated quite as cavalierly by the Scottish clergy (and stood just as much in awe of them) as by his nobility. The following anecdote is highly characteristic of his subser viency to the Puritan priesthood, and of the pulpit familiarity which was permitted at the time. James had fixed on a particular day, on which prayers were to be offered up for his unfortunate mother in the several churches, and had selected the Bishop of St. Andrew's to officiate in his own presence on the occasion. As soon as this order became known to the principal oppositionists, they induced a young man, a Mr. John Cowper, to ascend the pulpit, and to forestall the bishop in the performance of the service of the day. The king, says Archbishop Spotswood, seeing Cowper in the place, called to him from his seat, and said, "Mr. John, that seat was destined for another; yet since you are there, if you will obey the charge that is given, and remember my mother in your prayers, you shall go on." Cowper replying that he would do as the Spirit of God should direct him, was commanded to leave the place. This order he showed no inclination to obey: accordingly the captain of the guard proceeded to pull him out; on which he burst forth as follows; "This day shall be a witness against the king, in the great day of the Lord," and then denouncing a wo to the inhabitants of Edinburgh, he went down, and the Bishop of St. Andrews performed the duty.§

James was, to a certain degree, indebted for these insults to the discussion of familiar subjects,

and the personal allusions which he himself encouraged in the pulpit. This taste continued to the last period of his life; nor was he ever known to be displeased as long as the preacher hit his courtiers somewhat harder than himself. Even when seated on the English throne, a conscientious, or perhaps discontented, clergyman would occasionally proceed to such lengths as to keep the courtiers in continual alarm, lest any thing disagreeable to the king, or injurious to their own interests, should transpire. On these occasions they distracted his majesty's attention by the best means in their power. A jest well introduced, or a facetious remark, seldom failed in such an emergency. Among those who were best acquainted with James's character, and who thus pandered to his amusement, was Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, and afterwards Archbishop of York. This prelate was constantly at James's side, and whenever any thing was uttered, especially from the pulpit, which he was unwilling should meet the royal year, diverted the king's attention by some "merry tale." Arthur Wilson was himself present at a sermon which was preached before James at Greenwich, when the following remarkable scene took place. The preacher, one of the royal chaplains, selected for his text, Matt. iv. 8. "And the devil took Jesus to the top of a mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, saying, 'All these will I give,' &c. He first proceeded to demonstrate the power of the devil at that period; he then brought his kingdom down to the present time, expressing his belief that, as the devil was in possession of such large dominions, there could be no doubt but that he had his viceroys, councillors of state, treasurers, secretaries, &c. This gave him an opportunity of attributing the several vices, of which James's advisers were accused, to the ministers of his Satanic majesty, and portraying their characters accordingly. At last he came to the devil's treasurer, when he fixed his eyes on the Earl of Cranfield, a man notorious for his exactions, and lord treasurer at the time, and pointing at him with his hand, exclaimed in an emphatic manner, "That man," (repeating the words,) "that man, who makes himself rich and his master poor, is a fit treasurer for the devil." Cranfield all this time sat with his hat over his eyes, ashamed to look up; while James, who was placed above him, sat smiling, like a mischievous schoolboy, at his minister's discomfiture.

A treaty of marriage between James and Anne, daughter of Frederick, King of Denmark, had been set on foot as early as the year 1585, though not fully concluded till 1587. The death of the Danish king in this latter year still further delayed the completion of the marriage. When the match with Denmark was first proposed to James, he is said to have displayed the grossest ignorance as to the history and respectability of

*Richard Neile, the son of a tallow-chandler, was born in King Street, Westminster. He rose, by a rapid gradation of preferment, to be master of the Savoy, Dean of Westminster, and successively, Bishop of Rochester, Litchfield and Coventry, Lincoln, Durham, Winchester, and Archbishop of York. Both

Pryne and Wilson accuse him of Arminianism, but his orthodoxy is defended by Laud. "He died," says Anthony Wood, "as full of years as he was of honours, an affectionate subject to his prince, an indulgent father to his clergy, a bountiful patron to his chaplains, and a true friend to all who relied upon him." He was buried in Westminster Abbey.Fasti Oxoniensis, vol. i. p. 159.

that country, and to have objected to the alliance on the ground of the unworthiness of that kingdom to furnish him with a consort. Every thing, however, was at length settled. The marriage ceremony had been performed in Denmark, by proxy, in August, 1589, and James was anxiously expecting the arrival of his bride, when he received the news that she had been driven on the coast of Norway, and had determined to defer her voyage till the spring. It is amusing to discover a solemn historian of the period gravely attributing these delays to the machinations of witches. One Agnes Simson, "a matron of a grave and settled behaviour," actually confessed, that, at the instigation of the Earl of Bothwell, she had applied to her familiar spirit, (whom she was in the habit of invoking by the words holla, Master,) to take away the king's life. The demon, she said, had informed her, that on this occasion his powers had failed him; giving her his reasons in French, a language of which she was ignorant, though she was able to repeat the actual words of the spirit-il est homme de Dieu;t a compliment to James, which he, no doubt, fully appreciated.

Notwithstanding the powers of witchcraft, and the terrors of the sea, of which latter James stood greatly in awe, he was so eager to behold his future consort as to determine on proceeding in person to Norway for the purpose of conducting her home; the only act of gallantry on his part which history has been able to record.

James set sail, October 22, 1589, and after a prosperous voyage arrived at Norway, not far from Upslo, where the Princess of Denmark had taken refuge; and where the marriage was eventually solemnized. His dread of the sea is mentioned by more than one writer, and in his farewell manifesto he himself alludes to his anxiety on the subject: "As for my part, what moved me, ye may judge by that which I have already said,

* Melvil, p. 164. It is possible that James's objections might have arisen from the crown of Denmark being elective.

† Sanderson, p.

159.

‡ The interest which he took in the approaching ceremony is discoverable by a letter which he addressed to Lord Burghley, and which is still preserved among the Lansdown MSS. In this epistle he particularly recommends to his lordship's favour some merchants whom he has sent to London, to purchase dresses for the interesting occasion,

Right Trusty and Well-Beloved,

We greet you heartily well. Having directed the bearers, Robert Jowsie and Thomas Fenlis, merchants of Edinburgh, toward London for buying and provision of certain abulzementis and other ornaments requisite for decoration of our marriage, we have taken occasion to recommend them to your great courtesy, heartily requesting and desiring you to in

terpose your good will and mind to their expedition and furtherance in that concern, so that they be in no wise interrupted nor hindered in the performance and execution thereof, but may receive quick and hasty despatch; as ye will report our right special and hearty thanks and do us acceptable pleasure. Thus we commit you to God's good protection. From the Canonry of Ros, the 19th day of July, 1589. Your loving friend, JAMES R.

instantly obeyed, forcing his dagger into Ruthven's stomach two or three times. According to Spotswood, the man whom the king found in the apartment endeavoured to make his escape, but was run through the body by Sir Thomas Erskine, and killed on the spot. It seems, however, by every other account of the affair, that this mysterious individual took advantage of the commotion, and retired unnoticed from the apartment.

Soon after this, the Earl of Gowrie, who really seems to have been completely ignorant of what was going forward, rushed into the apart ment in which James had been placed by Sir Thomas Erskine, accompanied by three or four of his retainers, and having a sword in each hand. He made a most gallant attack, or rather defence, and was on the point of routing his opponents, when one of them cried out that the king was killed. Gowrie, in natural astonishment, dropped the points of his swords to the ground, when Ramsey, the page, seized the opportunity, and ran his rapier through the earl's heart.t

Thomas Cranstoun, George Craigengelt, and John Baron, retainers of Gowrie's, were executed for having connived at this conspiracy; they all declared with their dying breath that they were ignorant of any treasonable intent, and that they had only drawn their swords in defence of the earl, their master. "I have been taken," said Cranstoun, "for a traitor, but I thank God I am not one. I was stabbed through with a sword at this last tumult, and now I am to be hanged." Andrew Henderson, another follower of that unfortunate nobleman, deposed, on the other hand, that he was the person in armour already mentioned; though it seems that the king had been previously well acquainted

curred, is in singular opposition to the evidence of the witnesses.*

The further we investigate this complicated affair, the greater difficulties we meet with at every step. On the one hand, it appears highly improbable that James should have entered into such a plot against his own subjects that he should have allowed the earl and his brother to return from abroad, and have loaded them with favours, when all the time he fully intended their destruction-that he should have been guilty of the solemn mockery of appointing an annual day of thanksgiving for a deliverance which was merely ideal; and, what is perhaps the most weighty argument, that so notorious a coward should have voluntarily implicated himself in so perilous an adventure.

On the other hand, the arguments in favour of the Gowries' innocence are still more staggering. Besides the absence of a sufficient motive, it was proved that the only weapon found on Alexander Ruthven after his death, was a sword rusted in its sheath and undrawn; and he was, besides, a mere boy at the time. The earl and his brother were both slain on the spot, instead of being taken prisoners, which might easily have been effected. The king, without any apparent motive, had assembled an unusual force of armed men at the time, and as many as five hundred gentlemen are said to have composed his suite in the neighbourhood. The reality of the conspiracy was not only generally canvassed at the period, but appears to have been commonly disbelieved. The ministers of the church in Edinburgh positively refused to return thanks for the king's delivery, and preferred encountering his utmost vengeance to implicating themselves in what they conscientiously believed to be an infamous and mountebank cheat. The Bishop of

relation of what was supposed to have taken place. For many years afterwards, Gowrie was spoken of in Perth and its neighbourhood as an innocent and injured person, and James's conduct invariably mentioned with abhorrence.

* Pitcairn's Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 158. † Spotswood, p. 457; Sanderson, p. 226.

+ Pitcairn's Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 155.

§ See a very ingenious treatise, "The History of he Life and Death of John Farl of Gowrie, by the Rev. James Scott," p. 327, Edinburgh, 1818. This

ne

work, which is one of considerable labour and reearch, contains some curious references and extracts rom unpublished MSS. the parochial records of Perth, as also a summary of the various tracts, and ther printed works, which treat on the subject of "Gowries' Conspiracy." The object of the everend author is confessedly to exculpate his avourites, the Gowries; and if he has fallen short f effecting his purpose, he has at least deduced me very staggering facts, and opened an interest ng and wider field for discussion. The reader is so referred to the detailed, and more popular acbunt of Robertson.-Hist. of Scotland, Works, vol.

It has been asserted that a criminal intercourse had been carried on between the queen and Alexander Ruthven, and that the king's jealous sensibility induced him to adopt this means of revenge: this supposition, however, can be mentioned as little more than a surmise.

An attempt has been made to prove that the Earl of Gowrie was not only nearly allied, but, after James, was actually the next heir to the Eng

* See Life and Death of John Earl of Gowrie, p. 324. It is there affirmed, on the authority of an Edinburgh MS., that at the very time when Gowrie was killed, Henderson was seen walking on the Tay Bridge of Perth; and again, "That he was the man said to be in armour, was known to be a falsehood, for he was seen that day coming from Scoon to Perth, on foot; and having heard that the king was in Gowrie's house, and the gate shut, walked on the bridge till all was over."

† A thanksgiving for the king's deliverance was continued on the 5th of August throughout his reign. Bishop Andrews is said to have fallen on his knees to James, beseeching his majesty to enlighten him as to the reality of the treason, in order that he might be released from mocking the Almighty, should the story be a mere fiction. James, however, assured the bishop, on the faith of a Christian and the word of a king, that there was no deception in the case. - Biog. Brit. vol. iv. p. 2455.

lish crown; and, strange as it may appear, notwithstanding the proverbial industry and perseverance of the genealogists, this important doubt has never been cleared up. The supposition of Gowrie's affinity to the throne rests as follows: At the death of Elizabeth, the crown would naturally revert to the descendants of Henry the Seventh; Margaret Tudor, eldest daughter of that monarch, and grandmother of James the First, after the death of her husband, James the Fourth of Scotland, had married Henry Stuart, Lord Ruthven; who again married Lady Janet Stewart, daughter of the Earl of Athol. Lord Gowrie's mother was certainly granddaughter of Lord Ruthven, but whether descended from his first wife, the queen dowager, or from Lady Janet Stewart, remains yet to be proved: if from the former, after the failure of issue from James the First, the earl was certainly the natural successor to the throne; if from the latter, though in some degree it allied him to the royal family, it placed his hopes of succession at a very considerable distance.

Ingenious as are the attempts to prove this relationship on the part of the Gowries, and some of the arguments are staggering, we must ever bear in mind the important fact, that not a single contemporary historian has alluded to the subject; and we can hardly believe that, had such claims really existed, we should have been left so entirely in the dark. There are innumerable instances which clearly demonstrate that both Elizabeth and James regarded Lady Arabella Stuart as the subject most nearly allied to the throne. "Quiet as that young creature looks," said Queen Elizabeth to the French ambassadress, "she may one day sit on this throne!" Now, if the Earl of Gowrie were really the grandson of Queen Margaret, the claims of Arabella Stuart as great granddaughter are thrown altogether in the background. Supposing, however, as a matter of argument, that Gowrie really stood in the position in which it has been attempted to place him, the fact, however satisfactorily proved, would throw but little additional light on the identity of the guilty party. The same inducement which might have led Gowrie to get rid of James, in order to his own succession, might have actuated James in getting rid of Gowrie; for James was undoubtedly as jealous of his successor, or of any person who might interfere with his rights, as was Elizabeth herself; a fact sufficiently proved by his treatment of Arabella Stuart. It is improbable, also, that the proximity of the Gowries to the blood royal should have been an inducement with James; for, after the death of the earl and his brother, there remained two younger brothers, William and Patrick, who naturally inherited the claims of their elder brother. James, whatever was the motive, certainly persecuted that gallant and unhappy family to the last: William died in exile, and Patrick remained a prisoner in the Tower of London till liberated at

the accession of Charles the First. The boon

of freedom would have been valueless without

the means of subsistence, and Charles considerately settled a small pension on the victim of his father's gross injustice. During his incarceration, Patrick Ruthven had occupied his time and attention in literary and scientific pursuits. When the troubles of the revolution deprived him of the royal bounty, the last of the Ruthvens appears to have wandered an impoverished scholar in the streets of London; if he had not actually to struggle with the horrors of starvation.

It is but fair on the part of James to record the following anecdote: -Mr. William Cowper, the minister of Perth, informed Archbishop Spotswood, that, visiting the Earl of Gowrie some days previous to the supposed conspiracy, he found him intent on a book entitled, "Conspiracies against Princes."* The earl remarked that former plotters had invariably failed in their object through mismanagement, and that entire secresy was the only basis of success.

To enable the crown to confiscate the estates of the deceased earl, it was necessary that there should be a legal inquiry into the proofs of his guilt. This ceremony may be rather called a trial of the dead, for, in accordance with an ancient custom, the massacred remains of the brothers were deposited in court during the process of investigation. The parliament decreed that their names, dignities, and memories should be blotted from the books of the nobility; that their property should be at the disposal of the king; that they should be hung, drawn, and quartered at the cross of Edinburgh; and that the several portions of their bodies should be affixed to the most public buildings of the principal towns in the kingdom. The sentence was fulfilled almost to the letter; their heads were placed on the Tolbooth at Edinburgh, and their legs and arms on the gates of Perth.

Such are the circumstances connected with the famous Gowrie conspiracy. It must be admitted that the generality of our historians have decided in favour of James; indeed, the curious evidence recently brought forward by Pitcairn, in the Criminal Trials, is supposed by many to have set the question at rest. Whatever, therefore, is now adduced, has been intended rather to display the merits of a perplexing controversy, than as throwing any additional light on a subject which has been so often and so ably discussed.

CHAPTER IV.

The crown of England, at the death of Elizabeth, was transferred tranquilly and undisputedly to the brows of her successor. The deceased queen, as is well known, partly, perhaps, from superstitious, and partly from political motives, had ever shrunk from naming the person whom she wished to succeed her, and had invariably met any importunities on the subject with the utmost indignation. In the last moments of her glorious career, while in extreme sickness of mind and body, the lord admiral, the lord keeper, and Secretary Cecil, for the last time intruded upon her the hateful subject. The queen, says Camden,t replied faintly, that as she held a regal sceptre, so she desired no other than a royal successor. When Cecil requested her to explain herself more fully: I would, she added, have a king to succeed me, and who should that be but my nearest kinsman the King of Scots? Such is Camden's account, from which our principal historians appear to have borrowed their relation of this important passage. There is, however, another writer,

* De Conjurationibus adversus Principes. † Camden, History of Queen Elizabeth, in Kennett, vol. ii. p. 653.

+ Rapin, vol. ii. p. 155; Echard, vol. i. p. 902; Hume, vol. v. p. 385. Sanderson, who may almost be considered as a contemporary, gives a similar account (p. 261.) This historian, however, notwithstanding his constant professions to have been behind the scenes, is well known to have been a mere

Robert Carey, afterwards Earl of Monmouth, who was constantly in the queen's sick chamber, who relates the story in a somewhat different manner. Elizabeth, he says distinctly, was speechless at the time; adding, that, when the name of the King of Scotland was mentioned to her, she put her hand to her head, by which "they all knew that he was the man she desired should reign after her."* The council, and especially Cecil, were naturally anxious, in order to the quiet establishment of James, that they should be enabled to add the authority of the queen's express wishes to the claims of hereditary descent; we can therefore readily imagine that any circumstance, however slight, would have been brought to bear on the occasion. It is just as probable that the movement of the queen's hand should have been caused by a pain in her head, as that it should have been intended to denote the disposition of a kingdom.

No sooner was the breath departed from the queen's body, than Sir Robert Carey, who had been anxiously hovering about the death-bed of his kinswoman and benefactress, set off, with the lamentations of her women still ringing in his ears, to announce the important tidings to James: an act quite as indelicate as it was unauthorised. It appears, by Carey's own statement, that he must have ridden the distance between London and Edinburgh (about 400 miles) within the space of sixty hours, notwithstanding he received a dangerous fall from his horse, which retarded him on the road.‡

James received the news of his accession with proper decency. Rapin states, on the indifferent authority of a French historian,§ that he could not forbear lifting up his eyes to heaven, as if to thank God for the boon which he had so long and anxiously expected. Carey, on his part, mentions nothing of this discomposure, slight as it was, in the manner of James. The king had just gone to bed when he arrived, and therefore received him in his bed-chamber. "I kneeled by him," adds this true courtier, " and saluted him by his title of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland. He gave me his hand to kiss, and bade me welcome. After he had long discoursed of the manner of the queen's sickness, and of her death, he asked me what letters I had from

borrower from other writers. See Oldey's Life of Raleigh, p. 163; and Kennett's History, vol. i. p. 662.

* Memoirs of Carey, Earl of Monmouth, p. 140. † Fourth son of Henry, first Lord Hunsdon, created by James L. 5th February, 1625, Baron Carey and Earl of Monmouth. Horace Walpole has given him a place among the Noble Authors, observing, that "he was a near relation to Queen Elizabeth, but appears to have owed his preferment to the despatch he used in informing her successor of her death." He was indeed a true courtier. His memoirs were first published by John, Earl of Cork and Orrery, in 1759. He died at an advanced age in 1639. Walpole's Works; Burke's Extinct Peerage; Memoirs of Himself.

† Memoirs of Carey, Earl of Monmouth, p. 149. More than one instance might be mentioned of our ancestors having performed considerable distances in an incredibly short space of time. On the 17th of July, 1620, one Bernard Calvert, of Andover, rode from St. George's Church, Southwark, to Dover, crossed the channel in an open boat to Calais, and from thence returned to St. George's Church in the same day; having performed the whole distance between three o'clock in the morning and eight in the afternoon. Medulla Hist. Anglicanæ, p. 185; Stow,

1032.

§ Vol. ii. p. 158; from Du Chesne, Hist. d'Anglet.

the council? I told him none; and acquainted him how narrowly I escaped from them. And yet I had brought him a blue ring from a fair lady, that I hoped would give him assurance of the truth that I had reported. He took it and looked upon it, and said, 'It is enough; I know by this you are a true messenger.'"*

Birch has thrown a partial light over the his tory of the blue ring. "Lady Elizabeth Spel man," he says, "used to relate, that the Lady Scroope, who waited upon the queen in her last moments, as soon as her majesty expired, threw this ring out of the window to her brother, which appears to have been a token agreed upon be tween her and the King of Scots as the notice of the queen's death." A window was recently pointed out on Richmond Green, the site of the old palace, from which legend reported that the ring had been thrown.

Nothing could exceed the joy of the Scots, when the tardy accession of James to the throne of England was at length announced. The protracted reign of Elizabeth had been universally regarded as a national calamity; and we are even assured that a belief existed among the lower classes in Scotland, that the Queen of England had been long since dead, and that the English had been in the habit of substituting a series of old women in her room. Weldon says that the wisest heads in Scotland could scarcely be induced to believe, that as long as there was an "old wife" in England, their king would be called on to succeed.

The person selected by James to communicate his intended proceedings to the English council was Sir Roger Aston, who is reported to have served the king for many years as his barber, though he eventually rose to be a gentleman of the bed-chamber and master of the wardrobe. He seems to have been a plain and straight-forward man, and quite as overjoyed as his master at entering upon the splendours and luxuries for which they had so long waited. This rough Scotsman being admitted into the council-chamber, the lords received him with much courtesy, and asked him how he did? "Even, my lords," he replied, "like a poor man wandering about forty years in a wilderness and barren soil, and now arrived at the land of promise."§ Such was the general feeling of the Scottish nation. Shortly before James's departure from Edinburgh, happening to attend divine worship at St. Giles's church, the preacher thought proper to remind him of God's mercies, exhorting him to be duly grateful for the favour which had been shown him, and not to forget his countrymen! The king actually rose from his seat, and, " promising to have a care of them and their good, gave them a most loving and kind farewell."||

The progress of James, from his old to his new capital, was every where attended with a

magnificence to which he had scarcely been accustomed in his own impoverished realm. The

* Memoirs of Carey, Earl of Monmouth, p. 151. † View of the Negotiations between England, France, and Brussels.

He was natural son of John Aston, second son of Richard Aston, of Aston, in Cheshire; and though born an Englishman, had been brought up in Scotland. He had occasionally been employed to carry letters between James and Elizabeth. Sir Roger died 23d May, 1612, having accumulated a large fortune at court. Athene Oxon. vol. i. col. 173. § Weldon, p. 6. || Spotswood, p. 476. See Nichols's Progresses and Processions of King James I., vol. i. p. 53.