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 into the back ground. 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 secrecy was the only basis of success.

* De Conjurationibus adversus Principes.

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.

40

CHAPTER IV.

Death of Elizabeth.-Transfer of the Crown of England to James.-Sir Robert Carey's Mission to announce the Tidings to James.-Reception of the News by that Monarch.—The Blue Ring.-Joy of the Scots on James's Accession to the English Throne.-Sir Roger Aston.-Progress of James to his new Capital-his Reception in England-his Notions of the Royal Prerogative.-Tastes introduced by James into the English Court. The King's Love of Buffoonery - his "Counterblast to Tobacco.”—Curious Letter.-Sir John Harrington's Account of the Court Revels during the Visit of the Danish King.-James's Love of Wine.-Anecdote of the King of Denmark.-Intoxication of the two Kings. James's Excesses and his maudlin Repentancehis Habit of Swearing.-Lord Herbert's Apology for him.

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,* 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, 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

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

Memoirs of Carey, Earl of Monmouth, p. 140.