Divine worship in an unknown tongue, was continued. St. Paul declared, "In the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue," 1 Cor. xiv. 19.

In 1564, the queen of Scotland was inclined to form a second marriage. This was an important matter to England. If a powerful foreign alliance were formed, Mary's claim to the throne would be enforced; Elizabeth therefore interfered, both openly and by secret measures, to prevent her alliance with any of the continental princes attached to popery. In these, as in other matters of state policy, there were crooked proceedings, which it is impossible clearly to fathom or to approve. Elizabeth occupied Mary for some time by urging her to marry Dudley, earl of Leicester. Mary disdained him as her inferior, although for a time she pretended to think of him; but suddenly she determined to give her hand to Henry, lord Darnley, son of the earl of Lennox, a grandson of Margaret, sister of Henry VIII., by her second marriage. Some have thought that Elizabeth in reality promoted this union, though she affected to be much displeased. She would have preferred to keep Mary unmarried, but certainly this marriage would not be so prejudicial to the English interests as one with a foreign prince. The union commended itself to Mary, as in addition to Darnley's personal appearance, it prevented any claim on his part to the Scottish crown; and while it strengthened her own position, it rendered her independent of England. Thus, while finessing with the English government, she suddenly adopted the course most likely to promote her own views; and had it not been for the ill conduct of Darnley, the measure would have been a happy one for Mary. Their union took place in July, 1565, while its being formed in opposition to Elizabeth's remonstrances, gave the latter a pretext, though a very unjustifiable one, for promoting the discontents in Scotland. She encouraged the earl of

Murray, Mary's half-brother, to oppose his sister's marriage; but when he was obliged to take shelter in England, she disavowed any part in his proceedings, yet gave him private support.

Darnley was a.weak, profligate youth; he soon disgusted Mary, and quarrelled with her favourite Rizzio, a Piedmontese musician of low birth, whom Mary, with her accustomed weakness, favoured so as to raise scandalous reports, and to excite the displeasure of the Scottish nobility. Several nobles united with the king in a plot against this minion. They entered the queen's apartment while she was at supper with Rizzio; the latter was dragged from her presence, and stabbed to death in an adjoining gallery. This atrocity extinguished Mary's regard for Darnley, though for a time she pretended to be on good terms with him, that she might detach him from the nobles who planned and executed the murder of Rizzio.

In June, 1566, Mary gave birth to a son, afterwards James I. When Elizabeth heard of this event, she gave way to feelings of female rivalry, lamenting that the queen of Scots was mother of a fair son, while she herself was a barren stock; but she recovered herself to receive the Scottish envoy, and engaged to be sponsor to the young prince. The English parliament renewed the recommendation about the succession. Elizabeth was so anxious to avoid the settlement of this question, that she relinquished a part of the grant given by this parliament, rather than allow further debates on the subject. Some may be surprised at the aversion always manifested by Elizabeth to allow any settlement to be made respecting the succession: it may partly have arisen from a portion of her father's jealous spirit; but, on reflection, the wisdom of her conduct will appear. If Mary had been recognised as successor to the English throne, all those would have been alarmed who justly dreaded another popish queen: while Mary's own partisans would represent it as a proof that Elizabeth allowed her rival's title to be pre

ferable to her own. To set Mary aside would be unjust; it would have countenanced others to bring forward unfounded claims, and would have driven Mary's partisans to open attempts in her favour, as the only means to secure her succession.

Without entering minutely into the history of Elizabeth's suitors, it is enough to enumerate here those who appeared in the early part of her reign: the foreigners were, Philip, king of Spain, the archduke Charles of Austria, Eric, king of Sweden, Adolphus, duke of Holstein, and the earl of Arran. Among her own subjects, the most favoured seemed to be, sir William Pickering, the earl of Arundel, and lord Robert Dudley, afterwards earl of Leicester: but there is no just cause to believe that Elizabeth ever purposed to marry; though at times she entertained various proposals, to satisfy or to amuse her people.

Darnley and queen Mary were openly on ill terms; he was not present at the christening of the young prince, but intimated a desire to retire to the continent, since he found himself unpopular with the nation, and the queen had begun to manifest undue regard for the profligate earl of Bothwell. At this juncture, Darnley was seized with severe illness from the small-pox; the queen visited him at Glasgow, where she exhibited an appearance of returning affection, although at the time she was in correspondence with Bothwell, who engaged that means should be found for relieving her from her union. When Darnley was a little recovered, Mary caused him to be removed to Edinburgh, where, on the pretence of enjoying better air than at the palace, by the suggestion of Bothwell, Darnley was lodged in the Kirk of Field, a lone house, just without the walls of the city, on the spot where the buildings of the university now stand. The queen slept several nights in an apartment under that of Darnley, till on Sunday evening, February 10, she returned to the palace to be present at a masked ball, given on occasion of the marriage of one of her servants; the due observance of the

Χ

sabbath being disregarded by her, as commonly is the case in popish countries. Soon after midnight the sound of an explosion was heard. The lone house had been blown up with gunpowder, but the bodies of Darnley and an attendant were found uninjured in an adjoining garden.

Many volumes have been written respecting this murder. The result now generally admitted by impartial historians is, that Bothwell was the main contriver of the deed, assisted by earl Morton, and probably by some other nobles. Morton admitted that Bothwell had urged him to join in this atrocious act, with an assurance that the queen desired it. But there is not sufficient ground to fix Mary with being a direct participator in the plot, though it is evident that she had entered into a guilty correspondence with Bothwell, and looked to him for deliverance, by some means, from her unhappy marriage. Considering the principles and practices of those times, her hatred to Darnley, and the devices in which it is clear that she was engaged, there can be no doubt but that she was prepared for a deed of violence. Some leading nobles commenced a judicial inquiry; but when a man named Nelson, who was found unhurt among the ruins, stated, that the key of the rooms, including that in which Bothwell slept, were in the care of the queen's servants, they proceeded no further. However partial Mary's modern historical advocates may be in relating her history, few venture to deny that she had a guilty knowledge of what was to take place, and thus all their attempts to palliate the guilt of murder must be ineffectual.

It is impossible to clear Mary from being an accessory after the fact, even if she did not participate more directly in the murder of Darnley. Two days after the event, a placard was publicly set up in Edinburgh, charging Bothwell and others with having committed the murder with the queen's assent. Bothwell was then accused of the murder by Lennox, Darnley's father, in due form of law. The queen could not

refuse the demand that he and others should be brought to trial, but would not allow Bothwell to be taken into custody. She even suffered him to sit at the council, which directed that his trial should take place in sixteen days-a space of time evidently too short for needful preparation. He appeared on the day fixed, with many armed followers, and a military attendance, that effectually outbraved the administration of justice. Lennox did not venture to attempt to prosecute the charge, but one of his dependents attended to offer a protest in his name. Two days after this mockery of justice, the queen selected Bothwell to carry the sceptre before her in a procession to the parliament house. An application to grant Lennox a longer space to prepare the requisite evidence was refused, though strengthened by a letter from Elizabeth, who urged upon Mary the necessity of acting with sincerity and prudence, that the world might be convinced of her innocence of this enormous crime. Mary's ambassador at the French court gave similar advice; even there, strong surmises of her guilt were openly uttered.

Bothwell was allowed to proceed with impunity; many of the nobility, awed by his retinue, signed an address, recommending the queen to take him for her husband, though he was married to a sister of the earl of Huntley. He then pushed forward in his guilty course. Attended by a body of horse, he surprised the queen according to a plan preconcerted between them. She was conveyed to the castle of Dunbar, where she consented to marry Bothwell, whom she promoted to be duke of Orkney. Bothwell then procured a divorce for himself; the sentence being founded on an accusation presented by one of his agents in the name of his wife, accusing him of adultery. The banns for his marriage with the queen were published in Edinburgh; but the officiating minister, named Craig, at the same time boldly declared his abhorrence of such a union. On May 15, just sixteen days after the divorce from his wife, and little more than three months