The life of Charles the First : the royal martyr

Front matter

eC #7 é - a ete Coens at as) men

From a painting by Sir Anthony Van Dyck in the National Gallery. By permission of the Trustees.

KING CHARLES TE

Preface

In times of confusion, when the fountains of the great deep are broken up, when civilization, government, society, religion, are rocking on their foundations ; when selfishness, violence, avarice, dishonesty, are stalking through the world, and men know not how to meet them better than by yielding the old principles of moral and religious character, by a shallow opportunism, or by the search after new nostrums ; it is both refreshing and salutary to turn to the pages of past history, and to follow, through periods of like confusion and distress, the course of men who have stood for high religious and political principles, counting not the cost for conscience’ sake.

Such an one was King Charles the First of England. The period, in which he lived, was one of the great epochs of change and catastrophe in history. It might be compared with the times of the Fall of the Roman Empire, the Protestant Reformation (of which, indeed, it was a part), the French Revolution, the Great War of 1914 and the years that have followed. Throughout the period, through the din of its Parliaments, the fanaticism of its controversy and the thunder of its battlefields, the character of King Charles shines bright and clear. His actions were guided by principle; for his principle he fought and suffered; and for his principle he died. Much has been written about Vii

Vili PREFACE the life and times of King Charles. He has his devoted admirers, and his bitter enemies. In popular ~ literature and in school textbooks he has been maligned. But “serious historians have ceased,”’ says Lord Morley, “to stigmatize Laud as a bigot, or Charles asa tyrant. A theorizer the latter, doubtless, was, but, unyielding in fidelity to his standards of duty and material well-being, he was patient in facing the ceaseless buffets that were at last to sweep him down the cataract.”

I write as a loyal follower of King Charles the First. J make my own sentiments, which I think must be attributed to Dr. J. B. Mozley, namely, that “‘a Christian monarchy claims allegiance on the ground of its responsibility to Heaven, and that chivalrous loyalty unconnected with the consecration of the Church is but a romantic shadow.” I have tried to tell the story of the King’s life, so that he who runs may read. It would be my chief satisfaction to know that my book had helped to correct the popular misapprehension. It would be my ambition to write the narrative directly from the original documents, as Mr. Allan Fea has done so admirably for the last years of King Charles’ life in his great book, ‘‘ Memoirs of the Martyr King,” or as Mr. F. A. Mumby has treated the times of Henry VIII., Queen Elizabeth and Mary Stuart in his fascinating series of ‘‘ History in Contemporary Letters.” I can only hope that both of those accomplished students and writers may continue their work until they shall have given to the world the complete history of King Charles the First, as his contemporaries knew him. I do not fear the result.

Meanwhile, if my book contribute, in however small a degree, to a truer appreciation of the character of King Charles and of his defence of the Church

PREFACE 1X of England, I shall feel that my effort has been not in vain.

My indebtedness to writers of the past, as well as of the present, I acknowledge with gratitude. Their names are given in the list of authorities quoted. To Captain H. S. Wheatly-Crowe, President of the Royal Martyr Church Union, to James Dunn, Esquire, of Gloucester House, Malvern Wells, and to the Rev. J. Hermitage Day, D.D., for their valuable letters and answers to my inquiries, I desire to express my warm appreciation; to Miss Phillimore, of Shiplake House, Henley-on-Thames, I am_particularly grateful for her kind permission to use her notes on the Ezkon Basilike, and for all the generous interest and invaluable assistance she has bestowed upon my book.

As I lay aside a work, which for years past has occupied my leisure with an absorbing interest, I can say with Baillie, that “‘ His Majesty was ever the longer known the better loved of all that heard him, as one of the most just, reasonable, sweet persons they had ever seen.”

PRELUDE.

Ir is no slight privilege to be called upon to write a Prelude to the New Life of King Charles the Martyr, by Professor Coit.

His masterly handling of an episode in history, which is destined never to be forgotten, gives proof of the years of study and thought which he has bestowed upon his subject so that it would seem to be almost an impertinence to imagine that a Prelude could add anything to such a work.

Yet, on the principle that the effect produced by some striking piece of architecture demands an adequate approach in order to gain a due appreciation of the value of the work—in that capacity only the following thoughts, by way of retrospect, suggest themselves for consideration.

The year 1600 was drawing to its close when on November rg9th Charles, second son of James VI. of Scotland, was born at Dunfermline Castle, in the County of Fife. |

It was the first year of an eventful but ill-starred century which, before it had completed half its course would have to record such heavy tidings for posterity as the Civil War in England and the European Conflagration, called the ‘Thirty Years War.

Looking back upon the moment when the rather weakly Prince was ushered into the world where he was to play so conspicuous, if so hapless a part, it appears at this distance of time like the calm that goes before a storm.

Elizabeth was still upon the Throne of England. xi xil PRELUDE

She had reached the zenith of her power and was reaping the fruit of her vigorous administration. In spite of advancing years she still held the sceptre with firm, relentless grasp, being fortunately supported by shrewd and clever advisers ; while she esteemed her Royal Prerogative ‘The chief flower in her garden,

The principal and Head Jewel

In her Crown and Diadem.”’

It was a jewel which could flash like fire, as, for instance, when in her last Parliament of 1601, the Commons protested against her Monopolies, they were given distinctly to understand that :

‘The Royal Prerogative was not to be canvassed, nor disputed, nor examined, and did not even admit of any limitation, that it was in vain to attempt tying the Queen’s hands by Laws and Statutes, since by means of her dispensing powers she could loosen herself at her pleasure.”

Could the absolute right of a Sovereign be more strongly, more definitely declared P

Yet by a strange irony of fate, it was from Elizabeth that the people learnt the fatal lesson that it was possible and feasible to bring a Crowned Head— first of all to trial and then to execution. |

Little did she think that within the half century this lesson would be turned against a successor on the Throne, over which in her reign she had maintained so jealous a guard, and that from that very Throne would pass to the Scaffold the grandson of the Queen she had so deliberately murdered.

It was indeed an awful legacy, a fatal travesty of justice only too readily seized upon in the succeeding century to cloak the instinct for murder, that inevitable sequel of anarchy, with its inseparable accompaniment military tyranny.

PRELUDE Xill

We have heard, and we continue to hear, great condemnation of the insult offered to the liberty of the people, as represented in the House of Commons, by the intended seizure of the five members who contravened King Charles’ policy, a seizure which, by the way, was averted by the judicious flight of the impeached members.

But why did the modern historians of the last century make so little of the real seizure of the King himself by the Army in the Isle of Wight?

A captive in the hands of his enemies, after the failure of the Treaty of Newport, King Charles refused to save his life by flight.

The horses were ready at the door of the Council Chamber, the Cavaliers were in attendance beseeching their master with tears, to mount and be away, for they knew of the treachery waiting to betray him. The ship was ready to take him to France.

But—No—the King had pledged his word to the Parliament that he would not attempt to save his life by flight. On their side the Parliament gave their word that there would be no attempt made upon that life. The King kept his royal word. How did the Parliament keep theirs ?

Hurried to London after his seizure, the mock trial of the King took place in Westminster Hall. At the end of it, the question of the execution of their King was referred to the House of Commons.

There was a majority of 47 members against the execution.

Where were the liberties of the people of England ? When were they more insulted than when, by military force, the 47 members’ who formed the majority

Walker, “‘ History of Independence,” 11-29.

XIV PRELUDE were arrested and imprisoned with every circumstance of contumely and hardship, nor released till after the murder had taken place?

The King was a victim of military tyranny. He was not condemned by any free vote of the House of Commons. Still less by the people of England. ‘Not a tenth part of them,’”’ as one brave woman had the courage to retort upon the judge who dared to pronounce the sentence in their name.

It is a noble privilege of which the learned writer of this new life of King Charles I. has fully availed himself to plead once more the cause and restate the case of England’s Martyr King.

CATHERINE Mary PHILLIMoRE.

PREFACE

Contents

PRELUDE. ° *e mis 6 pee | ee 9) ©

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS oe oe es

LIST OF AUTHORITIES .. ade sie oe

CHAPTER

II

BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD oe oe PRINCE OF WALES ts ACCESSION, MARRIAGE AND CORONATION

IV. THE FIRST THREE PARLIAMENTS me V. THE KING AND THECHURCH .. os VI. PERSONAL RULE ae ee VII. SCOTLAND ey es Sp a VIII. THE SHORT AND THE LONG PARLIAMENTS IX. THE GREAT REBELLION X. THE GREAT REBELLION (CONTINUED) XI. NASEBY =P oe as ee XII. SOLD AND BOUGHT .. As oe XIII, CARISBROOKE ne XIV. THE TREATY OF NEWPORT oe XV. WESTMINSTER HALL .. me nie RVI. WHITEHALL .. a vie aa XVII. ST. GEORGE'S, WINDSOR a XVIII. EULOGIUM cP Si = ie APPENDIX a ay ane ve ne

ILLUSTRATIONS.

King Charles I. (from a portrait by Sir A. Van Dyck, in the National Gallery. With permission. By courtesy of Miss Phillimore) . .Prantis

° pvrece.

The Palace, Dunfermline (from a photograph by Mr. Francis C. eee moieties With his To ace 8 permission)

King Charles I. (from a portrait by Daniel Nee) Courtesy of the Mie Museum eh Art, New York) me

King Charles I. (from a portrait by Sir A. Van Dyck, in The Dresden sgh mes uD of Miss Phillimore) : RIAA

Little Gidding Church ( aie a Re Courtesy of Mr. Percy is Slater, Beece Peterborough) . I40

The Chapel Royal, Holyrood Me ( from a photograph by Mr. Francis C. Inglis, Edinburgh. Wath his permission) ret ta)

King Charles I. (from a portrait by Sir A. Van Dyck, in the National Gallery, With Bes misston) 7: te 200

Raglan Castle (from a eee by Messrs. Valentine 9 Sons, Ltd.. Dundee. With their permission) .. ie tte.

Carisbrooke Castle (from a photograph a Messrs. Valentine «S Sons, Lid., Dundee. With their permission) .. as . oe 200 xvii A

XVIli ILLUSTRATIONS

Westminster Hall (from a photograph by Messrs, *acine PSE OCT Gos tid. on With their permission) ie Pek:

Burial of King Cease I. (from a painting by Ernest Crofts, R.A. Seat Os Miss Phillimore) Waa

St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle ( fees a photograph by Messrs. F. Frith &F Co., Lid., Reigate. With their permission) .. mec is:

Statue of King Charles I. (at Charing Cross. Cast by Lesueur for the Earl of Arundel, in 1633). Ses Os courtesy of MissPeevezn

Phillimore .. 4 Ge 390-391

Dink Obey ROTEORETEEES

Acland and Ransome: A Handbook in Outline of the Political History of England. (Longmans, Green & Co., 1891.)

Baylis, M. S.: The Churchman’s History of England, Chapters XV. and XVI.

Blount, Dr. J. H. : The Annotated Book of Common Prayer. (E. P. Dutton & Co., 1884.)

Bright, Dr. J. F.: History of England, Vol. II. (Rivingtons, 1887.)

Burnet, Dr. Gilbert : History of His Own Times. (London: W. S. Orr & Co., 1850.)

Lives, Sir Matthew Hale. (New York: Henry

; M. Onderdonk & Co., 1846.)

Cambridge Modern History, Vol. III.

Clarendon, Earl of : History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England. (Oxford: At the University Press, 1839.)

Disraeli, Isaac : Curiosities of Literature, Vols. II., III., IV. (New York: Sheldon & Co., 1863.)

Commentaries on the Reign of Charles I.

Eikon Basiltke.

Encyclopedia Britannica (Eleventh Edition, 19 10— IQII).

English Churchwomen of the 17th Century.

Evelyn, John: Diary. (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1907.)

Fea, Allan: Memoirs of the Martyr King. (John Lane The Bodley Head, 1905.)

xix xx LIST OF AUTHORITIES

Fuller, Dr. Thomas: Church History of Britain, Vol. III., Bk. XI. (London : Thos. Tegg, 1842.) Gardiner, S. R.: A Student’s History of England, Vol. I1., Pt. VI. (Longmans, Green & Co., 1890.) History of the Great Civil War. (Longmans, Green & Co., 1914.

Garnier, T: (P.:° The Title Deeds of the Church of England.

Green, J. H.: History of the English People. Guizot, F.: History of the English Revolution of 1640. (London: Bell and Daldy, 1870.) Hall, Bp. Joseph : Works. (London: Thos. Hodg-

Hallam, Henry : Constitutional History of England, Vols. I. and II., Chapters VI. to X. (Boston : Crosby, Nichols, Lee & Co., 1861.)

Halliwell, J. O. : Letters of the Kings of England, Vol. II. (London: Henry Colburn, 1848.)

Hervey, Mary F. S.: The Life, Correspondence and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel. (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1921.)

Hume, David: History of England, Vols. IV. and V. (Harper & Brothers, 1879.)

Hutton, Dr. W. H.: The English Church from the Accession of Charles I. to the Death of Anne. (Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1913.)

Laud, Archbishop : Works, Autobiography.

Lingard, Dr. John: History of England, Vols. IX. and X. (Boston : Phillips, Sampson & Co., 18 53.)

Macleane, Douglas : Our Island Church. (London : George Allen & Sons, 1909.)

Imago Regia.

Macaulay, Lord: History of England, Chapters I.

and II. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.,

1875.) Essays. (New York: John W. Lovell.)

LIST OF AUTHORITIES XX1

Morley, Lord : Cromwell. (Macmillan & Co.)

Mozley, Dr. J. B.: Essays, Historical and Theological, Vol. I. (E. P. Dutton & Co., 1878.)

Pepys, Samuel: Diary. (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1906.)

Petrie, W. M. Flinders : Some Sources of Human Bisetory.) «( London’: 9S.P.C.K., 1922.)

Phillimore, C. M.: The Royalist Calendar for 1923. (Reading : E. Poynder & Son.)

Procter, Francis : History of the Book of Common Prayer. (Macmillan & Co., 1881.)

Sanderson, Edgar: History of England and the British Empire, Bk. XII., Chapters I. to VII. (London: Frederick Warne & Co., 1893.)

Strickland, Agnes : Lives of the Queens of England, Vols. VII. and VIII. (Philadelphia : Lea and Blanchard, 1849.)

Tait, C. W. A.: Analysis of English History. (Macmillan & Co., 1890.)

Wakeman, H. O.: History of the Church of England, Chapter XVI. (Rivington, Percival & Co., 1897.)

Walton, Izaak: Lives. (George Routledge & Sons, 1888.)

Wheatly-Crowe, Captain H. S.: Royalist Revelations. (George Routledge & Sons, Ltd., 1922.)

Wordsworth, Christopher : Ecclesiastical Biography, Vols. V. and VI. (F. C. and J. Rivington, 1810.)

Wordsworth, Christopher : Coronation of Charles I. (Henry Bradshaw Society.)

CHAPTER: I.

BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD.

1600—1612.

Origin of the House of Stuart—The Stuart Kings—James VI.—Anne of Denmark—Dunfermline—Birth of Charles Stuart—Baptism—Duke of Albany—Feeble health—Accession of James VI. to the Throne of England—Prince Charles left in Scotland—Brought to England— Created Duke of York—Court of James I.—The Gunpowder Plot —Colonies—Lady Arabella Stuart—Letters of Prince Charles—Investiture of Henry, Prince of Wales—Education of Prince Charles—Created Knight of the Garter—Goes a-Maying at Highgate—Death of the Prince of Wales—Prince Charles, heir to the Crown.

Tue Royal House of Stuart traced its descent from a family who held the hereditary office of Steward, or Seneschal, of Dol, in Brittany. Alan, a son of this Breton family of Stewards, ‘‘ enjoyed the favour of King Henry I. of England (1100—1135) who gave him the barony of Mileham in Norfolk. Alan was the father of at least three sons: Jordan, who succeeded to the family office of Steward of Dol ; William, who inherited the estate of his father in England, and who founded the great baronial house of Fitz Alan (afterwards Earls of Arundel) ; and Walter, who was made by David I. (1124—1153) Lord High Steward or Seneschal of Scotland.’’} Hence, the hereditary office, and in the course of time, the surname of Stewart, Steuart, or Stuart. The

(1) Encye. Brit. (11th edition) vol. xxv., p. 911. 1 B fourth Steward of the Scottish line was Alexander, who led the Scots against Haakon IV., King of Norway, in the Battle of Largs, October 2nd, 1263. This Alexander had two sons, James and John. ‘The latter, who fought against Edward I. in the Battle of Falkirk, in 1298, was the ancestor of the Earls and Dukes of Lennox, from whom Lord Darnley, husband of Queen Mary, and also Lady Arabella Stuart, were descended. James Stewart, the elder son of Alexander, fourth Steward, succeeded his father in 1283, and, after distinguishing himself in the wars of Wallace and Bruce, died in 1309. His son Walter, sixth Steward, who had joint command with Sir James Douglas of the left wing in the Battle of Bannockburn, married Majory, daughter of Robert the Bruce, and during the absence of Bruce, in Ireland, Walter Stewart was entrusted with the government of Scotland. He died in 1326, leaving an only son, Robert, seventh Steward, who upon the death in 1371 of his uncle David II., son of Robert Bruce, without children, succeeded to the throne of Scotland as Robert II., and thus became the first King of the House of Stuart.

To no Royal House in history is attached more of the glamour of romance and tragedy than to that of the Stuart line. The stormy period, in which the Princes of the family lived, the turbulence of the great nobles, the political relations of the northern kingdom with its powerful neighbour south of the Tweed, the constant alliance between Scotland and France, the religious revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the personal graces of the members of the royal family, their beauty, their courage, their power to win and to hold the devoted loyalty of their servants, the fatal destiny which followed their fortunes—all of this raises the history of the House of Stuart to the elevation of a great tragedy of the first rank.

Robert II., the first Stuart King, reigned from 1371 to 1390. He was succeeded by his son, Robert III. (1390—1406), whose eldest son, the Duke of Rothesay, was starved to death in prison by the King’s brother, the Duke of Albany—a narrative immortalized by Sir Walter Scott in “‘ The Fair Maid of Perth.” To save his younger son, James, from a similar fate, King Robert was sending the young Prince to France, when he was captured on the high seas by the English, and detained a prisoner at the court of Henry IV. This Prince James is known as one of the first of Scottish poets. He married the Lady Joan Beaufort, whom he had courted when a prisoner at Windsor. He accompanied Henry V. to France, and was present at the Battle of Agincourt. He reigned as James I. of Scotland, nominally from 1406, but actually from 1424, until 1437, when he was assassinated at Christmastide, in the Dominican monastery at Perth, by the nobles whose lawlessness he had tried to restrain. The heroic courage of Catherine Douglas in her attempt to save the King is well known. The reign of his son, James Il. (1437—1460), who married Mary of Gueldres, was a period of much disorder. The King himself was killed by the explosion of a cannon during the siege of Roxburghe Castle. James III. (1460—1488) married Margaret of Denmark. Defeated by the insurgent nobles, led by the Earl of Angus, at the Battle of Sauchieburn, the King took refuge at Beaton’s mill, near Bannockburn, where he was overtaken and assassinated.

His tomb and that of his queen, restored by the piety of Queen Victoria, may be seen in the ruins of Cambuskenneth Abbey on the banks of the Forth near Stirling. James the IV. (1488—1513), who wore next his skin an iron belt in reparation for his opposition to his father, married Margaret Tudor, elder daughter of Henry VII., a marriage destined, through much intrigue and bloodshed, eventually to unite the two kingdoms of England and Scotland. James IV., who is introduced into the poem of ‘* Marmion,” lost his crown, and it 1s believed, his life, on the Field of Flodden. James V. (1513— 1642), described in “ The Lady of the Lake” as “the Knight of Snowdoun, James FitzJames,” married in succession two French Princesses, first, Madeleine, daughter of Francis I. and secondly, Mary of Guise, widow of the Duc de Longueville, who, upon the death of James V., of a broken heart (after the defeat of his army at Solway Moss, and at the news of the birth of a daughter, instead of a son), acted for many years as Regent of Scotland for that daughter, the youthful Queen Mary. Even to-day, Scotland is full of memories of Mary, Queen of Scots (1542—1587). Portraits of her gracious beauty look down from many walls. Castles and battle-fields retain associations with her triumphs and her sorrows. Relics of her and of her handiwork are cherished still in Holyrood, and the traveller may follow the course of her imprisonment from castle to castle until the last tragedy of the block in the great hall of Fotheringhay. Queen Mary married in 1565 as her second husband Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, elder son of Matthew Stewart, Earl of Lennox, descended from John Stewart, younger son of Alexander Stewart, fourth hereditary Lord High Steward of Scotland. The mother of Lord Darnley was Margaret Douglas, daughter of Margaret ‘Tudor by her second husband, Archibald Douglas, Earl of Angus. Both Queen Mary and Lord Darnley were,

BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD F therefore, the grandchildren of Margaret Tudor, elder sister to Henry VIII. and both were descended from Alexander Stewart, fourth of his line, Queen Mary through the elder son James, fifth Steward of Scotland, and Darnley through the younger son John. Hence will be understood Queen Elizabeth’s jealousy and resentment at this marriage. Queen Mary, owing no doubt to her residence in France, was the first to adopt the spelling ‘‘ Stuart”? by which the royal family usually has been known.

The only son of Queen Mary and Lord Darnley was James VI. of Scotland, who, upon the forced abdication of his mother at Lochleven, was proclaimed King July 24th, 1567. Although he had been baptised on December 17th, 1566, by the Archbishop of St. Andrew’s, he was removed from his mother, and surrounded by Presbyterian influences, from which he was unable wholly to break away, until in 1603 he succeeded to the throne of England. It will be remembered that it was this King James, who, as James I. of England, presided over the Hampton Court Conference, and gave order for the new translation of the Bible, which is known as ‘“‘ King James’ Version.” ‘Throughout his reign, the King was a staunch supporter of Episcopacy, partly because he regarded the Episcopal form of Church government as the strongest support of the Divine Right of the King. For King James entertained the highest conception of the absolute power of the Crown over affairs both civil and ecclesiastical in his kingdom, From his youth, the King had been trained in theological learning, and he never ceased to take a keen and active interest in the controversies of the times, maintaining the position of the Church of England as against both Roman recusants and Protestant separatists. It is important to dwell upon the peculiar

6 iis ROYAL MARTYR traits of King James’ character and the special lines of his policy, for they form the background, as well as the inheritance, of the reign of his son, King Charles I. It has been thought that the circumstances of James’ birth were responsible for his physical weaknesses and a certain timorousness, in which he differed from most of the princes of his family. His mother, Queen Mary, was in the sixth month of her pregnancy, when she was forced to witness the brutal attack of Darnley and his fellow conspirators upon her hapless secretary, David Rizzio. To supply the want of personal courage, which he seems, however, to have possessed on horseback and in the chase, King James resorted to duplicity and a cunning diplomacy, in which, as in theology, he fancied that he excelled. It has been said of him that no Scottish King knew his people, or was known by them, so well as “ gentle King Jamie.” For Scotland, he did what Louis XI. did for France, and the Tudors did for England—he strengthened the power of the Crown, which he attempted to maintain by policy rather than by force of arms. In Scotland, King James ruled well ; in England, his extravagance, his favouritism, his shifty policy, and above all his insistence upon the absolute power of the Crown, sowed the seeds for that terrible harvest which his son was to reap in the Great Rebellion and on the scaffold. No historian has painted a more vivid, or indeed a more accurate, portrait of King James I. than Sir Walter Scott in “‘ The Fortunes of Nigel.” The contrast between the garrulous, undignified, impecunious, shrewd old King and his stately son is well and truthfully drawn.

The Queen Consort of James VI. of Scotland, and Il. of England, was Anne, daughter of Frederick IL., King of Denmark and Norway, and his wife, Sophia of Mechlenburg. On the 20th of August, 1589, Anne of Denmark was married by proxy to King James. “‘ Her voyage to Scotland was interrupted by a violent storm (for the raising of which several Danish and Scottish witches were burned !), which drove her on the coast of Norway, whither the impatient James came to meet her, the marriage taking place at Opslo (now Christiania) on the 23rd of November. The royal couple, after visiting Denmark, arrived in Scotland in May, 1590.1 Handsome, gay, fond of pleasure, and extravagant, sometimes petulant and imprudent, the Queen was, nevertheless, a faithful wife and a devoted mother. She seldom interested herself in public affairs, though when Sir Walter Raleigh appealed to her for protection, she used all her influence in his favour. She had been brought up a Lutheran; but Scottish Calvinism repelled her, and, it is said, she was inclined towards the Church of Rome. She was crowned with her husband at Westminster in 1603, though she refused to receive Holy Communion at that time. She communicated once subsequently, and attended occasionally the Anglican services. She favoured the marriage of the Prince of Wales with the Spanish Infanta, while she disapproved of that of her daughter Elizabeth with the Elector Palatine. But these sentiments are to be attributed rather to the Queen’s ambition for great continental alliances for her children than to her religious predilections. ‘The Queen was claimed as a convert by the Jesuits ; but on her death-bed, when she was attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, she used expressions, which were interpreted in a different sense. Besides several children, who died

(1) Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. ii., p. 70, e¢ sequen.; Strickland, “The Queens of England,” vol, vii., 246—255.

in infancy, Queen Anne was the mother of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, who died in 1612; Charles, afterwards King Charles I. ; and Elizabeth, Electress Palatine and Queen of Bohemia.

Before the days of the great bridge across the Forth, the traveller might set out, like Mr. Jonathan Oldbuck, in the Edinburgh coach for Queensferry, whence, after crossing the firth by ferry, he might pursue his pleasant morning’s drive through Fifeshire to the ancient burgh of Dunfermline—a place full of historical associations. Here was solemnised in 1070 the marriage of Malcolm Canmore and his queen, Margaret, sister of Edgar Atheling—St. Margaret of Scotland. Here, in 1075, were laid the foundations of the Benedictine Priory, raised to the rank of an Abbey by David I. Within the precincts of Dunfermline Abbey were buried more of Scotland’s royal dead than in any other spot in the kingdom, excepting only Iona. Here is the tomb of St. Margaret. Here is the grave of Robert Bruce, whose heart was placed behind the High Altar of Melrose Abbey. ‘The Palace of Dunfermline, occupying a picturesque position near Pittencrief Glen, was a favourite residence of many of the Scottish Kings, especially of James IV., James V. and James VI. Together with Falkland, Dunfermline was a dowerhouse of Queen Anne, the consort of James VI. And hither, in the autumn of 1600, after the shock of the Gowrie Conspiracy, the peril of the King, the tragic deaths of the Earl of Gowrie and his brother, Alexander Ruthven, and the banishment from her household of her favourite maid of honour, Beatrice Ruthven, Queen Anne retired to await her approaching confinement. At Dunfermline, then, under the shadow of these tragic circumstances, in the home of his an-