[13] Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 176.
[14] Melville, p. 192.
[15] The Ruthven here spoken of is the son of the Lord Ruthven, who took so active a part in the murder.
[16] Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 175 and 342.
[17] Keith—Preface, p. viii.
[18] Keith, p. 364.
[19] Keith, p. 151.—Laing, vol. ii. p. 76.—Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 268.—Whittaker, in endeavouring to prove (vol. ii. p. 322) that the Catholic Ecclesiastical Courts had never been deprived of their jurisdiction, and that, consequently, there was no restoration of power to the Archbishop of St Andrews, evidently takes an erroneous view of this matter. In direct opposition to such a view, Knox, or his continuator, has the following account of the transaction:—“At the same time, the Bishop of St Andrews, by means of the Earl of Bothwell, procured a writing from the Queen’s Majesty, to be obeyed within the Diocess of his Jurisdiction, in all such causes as before, in time of Popery, were used in the Consistory, and, therefore, to discharge the new Commissioners; and for the same purpose, came to Edinburgh in January, having a company of one hundred horses, or more, intending to take possession according to his gift lately obtained. The Provost being advertised thereof by the Earl of Murray, they sent to the Bishop three or four of the Council, desiring him to desist from the said matter, for fear of trouble and sedition that might rise thereupon; whereby he was persuaded to desist at that time.”—Knox, p. 403. This account is not quite correct, in so far as the Earl of Murray alone, unsupported by Mary’s authority, is described as having diverted the Archbishop from his purpose.
[20] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 199; and vol. ii. p. 176.
[21] Keith, Preface p. viii.
[22] Anderson, vol. iv. p. 165.—Goodall, vol. ii. p. 76.