9. KING JAMES.-In 1578, Queen Mary's only son James, then in his twelfth year, was proclaimed king, and chose a council of twelve noblemen; but after the death of the regent Morton, he took the government into his own hands, under the influence of his favourites, Lennox and Arran. He never had much courage or firmness; and while a youth, the bold lawless nobility of his kingdom fought for the possession of his person, for any one of them who had the king in his keeping was in a manner the governor of the country. The Earl of Gowry, who had estates in the Highlands of Perthshire, invited him there to enjoy the sports of the field. He was taken from one hunting-place to another, but one morning when he awoke in Ruthven Castle, near Perth, he was astonA.D. ished and alarmed to see the place surrounded by armed men. When he wished to depart he was rudely stopped, and this making him begin to cry, one of the barons told him, that it was better that children should weep than bearded The Earl of Gowry was thus made master of the king and of the kingdom, but James escaped by a plot nearly as sudden and unexpected as that by which he was caught. When visiting St Andrews with his keepers, he wished to see the inside of the castle; and no sooner had he entered the gates than he ordered them to be shut upon Gowry's adherents. The earl himself was afterwards executed.

1582.

men.

James was conceited and cowardly. He was exceedingly fond of power, but liked to enjoy it as if he were a sacred personage whose will must never be disputed, and he hated to incur any danger or any labour to acquire it. Unfortunately for himself, however, he lived among a turbulent and obstinate people, who would have given trouble to one much bolder and more energetic than he was. He had not only to encounter rude barons, but resolute churchmen. He was himself attached to episcopacy, as being a showy and dignified form of church government; but a large portion of the people and the most able clergymen were in favour of the presbyterian sysA.D. tem, to which he was at last obliged to submit. When 1592. his mother was put to death, he was at first very indignant; and though he would have been more excusable than many sovereigns have been for the wars into which they have plunged their people if he had attempted to avenge her wrongs, he looked forward to being the successor of Elizabeth, and his thorough selfishness restrained him.

THE GOWRY CONSPIRACY.-Before his succession to the

A.D. throne of England, a strange incident occurred, called 1600. the Gowry conspiracy, in which the chief actors were the sons of that Ruthven, earl of Gowry, who had carried him off in his youth. One of these young men stept up to the king as he was hunting, and said he had seized a very suspiciouslooking man-probably a Jesuit-with a quantity of gold, and had him safely secured in Gowry House, waiting till the king should examine him. James was fond of unravelling mysteries; he was always suspicious of the Jesuits, and had а keen eye after gold; so that he could not resist the temptation to investigate the matter. He accompanied the young man to Gowry House, in Perth, where he dined with his elder brother. After dinner he was taken secretly through passage after passage, till at length he reached a small room in a turret, where, instead of a bound captive, he saw a man in armour with a dagger in his hand. Young Ruthven seized the dagger, and presented it to the king's breast, who called out for aid: his retinue passing under the turret heard his cries, and after some difficulty found their way to the apartment. The two Ruthvens were slain on the spot; but though the most thorough investigation was afterwards made, the mystery of this conspiracy was never fully developed, and it is impossible to say what object the Ruthvens had in view.

During the few remaining years of the reign of Elizabeth, her apparently most devoted followers were paying court to James as her successor, and one of these, Sir Robert Carey, having by means of his sister, who belonged to the queen's household, been told the moment when she ceased to breathe, was instantly on horseback and on his way to Scotland. She had died at three o'clock on Thursday morning, and on Saturday night James was raised out of bed by Carey, to be informed that he was King of England. The journey was in those days considered one of astonishing rapidity.

EXERCISES.

1. What parties struggled for power on the accession of the young Queen of Scots ? What was the policy of the King of England? What was the effect of his attempts? Describe Hertford's invasion. What led to Cardinal Beaton's death? Describe it. Who joined the garrison in St Andrews Castle.

2. What was the conduct of the protector Somerset? What was found in St Andrews Castle? Describe the method of gathering the people? What occurred near Musselburgh? What important act was passed?

3. Who was Mary of Guise? Whom did Queen Mary marry? What were her claims to the English throne? Describe the progress of the Reformation. Describe Elizabeth's conduct at this juncture. Describe the

proceedings of the lords of the congregation. What was concluded by the treaty of Edinburgh?

4. Mention the occurrences connected with Mary's return. Whom did the queen marry as her second husband? What was the "Round-about Raid "?

5. What was Darnley's character? Who was Rizzio? Describe his murder? What was Mary's conduct after it? When was James VI. born? Describe the manner in which Darnley was murdered. Who was suspected of the deed? How did Mary treat him?

6. What did the nobles do? What occurred at Carberry Hill? What was Mary subjected to? What was the result of her escape? Who became attached to her in England? What was the consequence of his attachment? What was the end of Bothwell?

7. Describe the assassination of the Earl of Murray. What was the conduct of Morton and the King's men? What fears and rumours disturbed the reformers? What advantage was taken of the rumours in England? What was Morton's fate? Describe the changes in the church government during Morton's regency. What was the Charter of the Liberties of the Kirk?

8. What was the Babington conspiracy? What was its effect? What was the nature of Mary's trial? What was her fate? What steps did Elizabeth take to make it appear that she had not caused it?

9. What was the character of King James? What events occurred in his youth? What was his conduct to the presbyterians? How did he feel regarding his mother's death? Give a history of the Gowry conspiracy. How was the information of Elizabeth's death conveyed to James?

CHAPTER XXII.

HOUSE OF STEWART-FOUR SOVEREIGNS.

JAMES I., A. D. 1603-1625.

James I.-Foreign Alliances-Conference at Hampton Court-Episcopacy in Scotland-Doctrine of Divine Right-Gunpowder Plot-Resistance of the Commons-Ireland-Carr and Villiers-Fate of Sir Walter Raleigh -James's Matrimonial Projects-War with Spain-Character of James I. -Literature.

1. JAMES VI. of Scotland succeeded without opposition to the English throne, under the title of James I. In acknowledgment of the marks of affection lavished on him by his new subjects, he commenced with an extraordinary profusion of titles and honours. In the short space of six weeks he created more than two hundred knights; and before he had been three months in England the number was increased to seven hundred. By such prodigality these honourable dis

tinctions lost half their value, and the whole nation murmured at favours so copiously and so indiscriminately bestowed. James, however, had the good sense to leave to Elizabeth's old ministers the principal offices and the management of the most important affairs.

In the first year of this reign two mysterious conspiracies to dethrone James were discovered-the Bye and the Main : the one to seize the king and force him to grant toleration to the catholics; the other to place Arabella Stuart on the throne. This lady, the daughter of the Earl of Lennox, brother to Darnley, James's father, was supported by a considerable party among the English catholics, and the design of raising her to the throne on the death of Elizabeth was favoured by the pope. Raleigh, Lords Cobham and Grey, were tried for their alleged share in these plots, and found guilty upon very defective evidence. Their lives were spared, while some of the inferior conspirators were executed.

The puritans, who had been suppressed by severe laws under Elizabeth, had hoped, if not for special protection, at least for milder treatment at the hands of a prince educated according to presbyterian principles. But James, disgusted with their maxims and their republican manners, and strongly attached to his prerogatives, favoured the Anglican forms of worship, which were more conformable to his own sentiments on the sovereignty and the interests of the throne. Nevertheless the desire of parading his theological learning induced A. D. him to permit a conference to be held at Hampton 1604. Court between the leading men of the two parties. After several long and useless controversies in presence of the king and his ministers, the two parties separated with very different feelings towards the monarch, who, in the course of the discussion, had often repeated his favourite maxim, so pleasing to the episcopalians, and so hateful to the presbyterians, no bishop, no king. After this conference James strenuously exerted himself to restore episcopacy in Scotland, and he succeeded in getting it established by parliament in 1612.

2. DIVINE RIGHT.-At this time a new doctrine, called the divine right of kings, which produced serious calamities in the ensuing reigns, was beginning to find partisans. It was chiefly supported by some episcopalian divines, who had derived it from the laws of the Roman empire after the liberties of the people had been destroyed. Aecording to this

doctrine, the monarch represented God on earth, his nature was in a manner divine, and what he did was no more to be questioned than if it were the precept of the deity. Such was not the notion entertained about the old English kings. Sometimes, indeed, they were very powerful and very tyrannical, but it was by their talent and courage rather than by divine right that they were so. This enabled them to know how far they could go, and to draw back when it would be dangerous to push matters to extremity. Thus Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth were extremely tyrannical, but it will be observed that both of them exercised their tyranny through the constitutional means of their parliaments, and did not venture to tax or otherwise oppress the nation at large without the authority of the Commons. They were both very severe to their courtiers, who they knew would submit to a great deal for the sake of royal favour, but they took care not to outrage in the same manner the rights and freedom of the people at large, who had not the same inducement to bear with them. Queen Elizabeth was especially cautious not to excite opposition by overstretching her prerogative. At one time she had created a serious opposition, both in parliament and among the people, by granting monopolies. If she had adopted the divine right theory, so acceptable to her two successors, she would have said that it was her will, and so it must be; and perhaps a rebellion might have followed. "She, however," says Mr Macaulay, " with admirable judgment and temper, declined the contest, put herself at the head of the reforming party, redressed the grievance, thanked the Commons in touching and dignified language for their tender care of the general weal, brought back to herself the hearts of the people, and left to her successors a memorable example of the way in which it behoves a ruler to deal with public movements which he has not the means of resisting.'

While the spirit of constitutional opposition was thus reviving in the nation, the parliament of 1604 spoke out energetically against the rights of wardship and purveyance, while it denounced the monopolies which concentrated nearly all the commerce of the kingdom in London, and that of the metropolis in the hands of about two hundred individuals. These remonstrances, however, were for the time of no effect. James needed supplies of money, which could only be granted by the parliament, but he could make no impression upon the economical feelings or the suspicion of the Commons, who