mitted as lords of the articles, to prepare the measure for the adoption of the
house, according to the constitution of the parliament of Scotland, because they
had embraced presbyterianism, and were therefore disqualified by the constitution they were about to alter : and, along with the bishops of Dunkeld and Dumblane, gave an unavailing opposition to the measures.
Three years after this convention, he became amenable to one of its provisions, which prohibited the celebration of mass, and was committed to the castle of Edinburgh, whence he was released through the reiterated tears and intercessions of queen Mary. Royal favour still beamed on the archbishop, but it was clouded by popular hatred. In 1566, at the imprudent request of the queen, he baptized the young prince with the ceremonies of the church of Rome, and with still more imprudence, if not with a design of aiding the perpetration of deep wickedness, he was, on the 23d of September, of the same year, personally re-invested by the queen's signature, in the consistorial jurisdiction, of which the clergy in general had been deprived by the legislature. Whi taker, with the purposes of a special pleader before him, maintains this not to have been a revival of the jurisdiction, but the special gift of an authority which had not been discontinued. Not to argue on the improbability, that a jurisdiction belonging to the body of right, should be bestowed on one particular member by favour, the act of parliament which transfers to the commissaries the consistorial authority of the church, is as plain as a Scottish act usually is. The dangerous and invidious jurisdiction thus bestowed, was used on one great occasion, and history has preserved no other instance of its application: he granted a commission to judges, who severed the inconvenient bonds betwixt earl Bothwell and his wife, which interfered in some respects with the formality of a marriage with the queen, and this act, coupled with the circumstance that the archbishop was one of those who prepared the account of the murder of Darnley, so hastily transmitted to the French court, originated in the minds of his enemies suspicions of deep guilt, the justice of which we do not pretend to judge.
The fidelity of the archbishop towards the queen, however much party spirit may account for it on ambitious grounds, is, by a charitable interpretation, a pleasing part of his character. He was the heart and head of the party which associated for her cause, during her confinement in Lochleven. He aided her escape, and boldly urged on the battle, so unfortunate to the queen, which followed. He now bid a perpetual adieu to the state and pomp he had so long sustained, and seems to have for more than a year wandered through the country in search of a roof to protect him. On the capture of Dunbarton castle in 1571, the governor of which had bestowed on him temporary protection, he was tried on an accusation of four several acts of treason. First, "That he knew, and was participand or accomplice in the murdering of king Henry, the queen's husband. 2d, That he conspired against the king's person at the murdering of the first regent, intending to have surprised the castle of Stirling, and to have been master thereof at his pleasure. 3d, That he knew, or was participand in the murder of James, earl of Murray, the late regent. 4th, That he lay in wait at the wood of Calendar, for the slaughter of Matthew, earl of Lennox, the present regent." With a candour which ought to weigh much with the world, in the consideration of the other atrocities of which he has been accused, he confessed with contrition a participation in the third crime laid to his charge: much confusion and mystery attend the accounts of this trial which have reached our time, but it would appear that some difficulties, either in form or evidence attending the proof of the crimes laid to his charge, prompted recourse to a fie-
