1

"the Prince, her fon, to thair governance, "praying them effectually to fuffer nane "to be with him in cumpany in his "youtheid, that wold give him evil ex

66

nes.

ample in manners, but that fic war "prefent with him who could and would "inftruct him in vertue and all godlie"She recomendit to them "the ftate of religion within the realm, "praying thame effectuouflie to trouble nor "prefs no man in his confcience that pro"fefs'd the Catholic religioun.". Let us now afk the Hiftorian, Do these fentiments of piety and religion correspond with the character of a woman immerfed, as he fuppofes, at that moment, in a criminal amour?

Within a few days after the conferences in the castle of Craigmillar, viz. on Christmas 1566, the Queen was prevailed upon to grant a pardon to the Earl of Morton, and to seventy-five of his accomplices in Rizzio's flaughter. This was the previous

and

and neceffary ftep of the confederates to the grand enterprise, which soon after, upon Morton's appearing again in the scene, was to take place.

*

Upon the 9th of February 1567, the Earl of Murray affected publicly to ask leave to go from court to his houfe in St. Andrew's, on pretence that his wife was indifpofed. And the next morning, the 10th of February, theKing's houfe was blown up with gun-powder, and his body found dead.

Before we go further, it may not be improper to make a stop here for a little, and call back our attention to two facts that have occurred in the preceding narration, which appear to throw light upon the dark affair of Darnley's murder.

We have recently feen the Queen's con duct in preventing her husband's refolution of leaving the kingdom, only three months before his murder.

We fhall enter into a full investigation of this matter afterwards.

The other fact to be obferved is, the propofal made by Murray and Lethington to the Queen in the caftle of Craigmillar, to procure a divorce between her and Darnley, which the Queen utterly rejected.

Now, as both these incidents happened within fo fhort a time of Darnley's murder, and at the time when his behaviour to the Queen was most shocking, at the very time too when her enemies pretend she was carrying on her criminal amour with Bothwell, is it natural to conceive, that fhe fhould have rejected both thefe opportunities offered to her, of being fo effectually freed from her husband without trouble, and rather chufe to involve herself in the horrid crime of his murder?

Should we fuppofe the reason of her rejecting the propofal of the divorce might proceed from an apprehenfion of doing hurt

hurt to her fon's title, which it is improbable that a woman, fo wicked as to be meditating the death of his father, could be much affected with; yet Darnley's project of going abroad, not only freed her from the company of a troublesome husband, but likewife (if we can imagine her fo wicked as her enemies have afferted) afforded her many opportunities, either of keeping him out of the kingdom, or of conspiring his death at a distance, by unknown hands.

Queen Mary's conduct, therefore, with regard to the above two facts, makes it altogether improbable, that at this time she could have entertained the most diftant thought of fo atrocious an action as the murder of her husband.

CHA P. IV.

A Review of the Conduct of Queen Marÿ previous to Lord Darnley's Murder. Differtation on the Murder, and Vindication of the Queen.

HE murder of Lord Darnley has not,

THE

in our apprehenfion, been confidered in all its circumftances with that particular attention which its importance merits. Many, from the fubfequent incident of Queen Mary's marriage with the Earl of Bothwell (afterwards detected as one of the principal confpirators in the death of Lord Darnley), have rested their judgment. on that fact, as fufficient proof of the Queen's guilt as acceffary to the murder; and upon that ground of conviction, have given themselves little trouble in examining