Volume II Part 8 (2/2)

[57] Melville, p 174

[58] The notion that the powder, hich the Kirk-of-Field was blown up, had been placed in afor the purpose, was for a while very prevalent Mary, of course, never suspected that it had been put into her own bedroom; but the truth came out as soon as the depositions of Bothwell's accomplices were published Why Whittaker should still have continued to believe that avery justly ridicules the absurdity of such a belief

[59] There is a sincere piety in this rejection of the word ”chance” Mary was steadily religious all her life, and certainly nothing but a pure and upright spirit could have induced her, on the present occasion, to appeal to her Creator, and say, ”It was not chance, but God”

[60] Keith, Preface, p viii

[61] Anderson, vol i p 36

[62] Lesley in Anderson, vol i p 23

[63] Keith, p 368

[64] Laing's rely weak He seeht to have thrown into prison some of her most powerful nobility He adds,--”If innocent, she must have suspected somebody, and the means of detection were evidently in her hands The persons who provided or furnished the lodging,--the ed,--the servants of the Queen, ere intrusted with the keys,--the King's servants who had previously withdrawn, or were preserved, at his death,--her brother, Lord Robert, who had apprised hier, were the first objects for suspicion or inquiry; and their evidence would have afforded thedoes not see the very steps which Mary actually took She had not, indeed, herself exaeneral habits and her feelings at the tial authorities to assemble every day, till they ascertained all the facts which could be collected Nor does Laing seem to remember, that Bothwell had it in his power to exercise over these legal authorities no inconsiderable control, and to prevail upon thearble and conceal several circurew, the English ambassador, sent by Elizabeth to offer her condolence, mentions, that he ”found the Queen's Majesty in a dark chamber so as he could not see her face, but by her words she seemed very doleful”--Chalmers, vol ii p 209

[66] Chalmers, vol i p 208

[67] _Vide_ these Letters in Anderson, vol i p 40, or Keith, p 369

[68] Anderson, vol i p 50

[69] Goodall, vol i p 346, _et seq_

[70] Chalmers, vol i p 209 The above fact is no proof, as Chales, that Murray was connected with the conspirators; but it shows, that whatever his own suspicions or belief were, he did not choose to discountenance Bothwell Could Mary ever suppose that the _Godly_ Earl of Murray would entertain a murderer at his table?

[71] Anderson, vol i p 52

[72] Robertson--Appendix to vol i No XIX

[73] Anderson, vol ii p 103

[74] Anderson, vol ii p 104, et seq--and Keith, p 375, et seq

[75] Anderson, vol ii p 157

[76] Anderson, vol i p 107; and Keith, p 381

[77] Keith, p 382--There are extant two lists of the names of the subscribers, and these differ in one or two particulars froiven to Cecil from memory by John Reid, Buchanan's clerk; the other is a document authenticated by the subscription of Sir Jaister and Privy Council The chief difference between these two copies is, that Reid's list contains the nah on the 20th of April he was out of the realh not produced, ht have been drawn up sooing away This is possible, but, considering Murray's cautious character, not probable The point does not seeh by those who are anxious to ainst Bothwell, it is deeth Perhaps Bothwell forged Murray's signature, to give his bond greater weight both with the nobles and with the Queen; although one name more or less could not make much difference either to her or them

[78] Keith, p 390

[79] Keith, p 383--Melville's Memoirs, p 177--Whittaker, vol iii p

106 and 356

[80] Melville, p 177