I cannot here expose all his misstatements in the passage to which I have referred. He keeps out of view the fixed resolution of the queen to re‑establish the Romish religion, with all the perils to which the protestants were exposed. He artfully introduces his narrative, by placing her proclamation against altering the protestant religion before the symptoms of popular discontent at her setting up of mass; whereas the proclamation was issued after these, and would never have appeared, had it not been found necessary to allay the apprehensions of the people. Knox, 285. Keith, 504, 505. As a proof that the preachers “took a pride in vilifying, even to her face, this amiable princess,” he gives extracts from an address to her by the General Assembly, without ever hinting that this was merely a draught or overture; that every offensive expression was erased from it before it was adopted by the assembly; and that, when the address was presented by the superintendents of Lothian and Fife, the queen said, “Here are many fair words; I cannot tell what the hearts are.” Knox, 315. Mr H. goes on to say: “The ringleader in all these insults on Majesty, was John Knox.――His usual appellation for the queen was _Jezebel_.” This is a mistake. Neither in his sermons, nor in his prayers, nor in conversation, did he give this appellation to Mary, so long as she was queen; but always honoured her before the people, as well as in her own presence, even when he lamented and condemned her errors. Afterwards, indeed, when for her crimes (of which no man was more convinced than Mr H.) she was removed from the government, and he no longer acknowledged her as his sovereign, he did apply this name to her. It is so far from being true, that “the whole life of Mary was, from the demeanour of these men, filled with bitterness and sorrow,” or that she “was curbed in all amusements by the absurd severity of these reformers,” that she retained her “gaiety and ease,” until, by her imprudent marriage with Darnley, she with her own hand planted thorns under her pillow; while the preachers were most free in their sermons, she enjoyed all manner of liberty; her mass was never taken from her; she was allowed to indulge her “feasting, finery, dancing, balls, and whoredom, their {321} necessary attendant;” nor was she ever interrupted in these amusements, except when her own husband deprived her of her favourite Italian fiddler, a loss for which she afterwards took ample vengeance. It is difficult to conceive how one acquainted with the history of that period, and the character of the queen, could impute the “errors of her subsequent conduct” to the “harsh and preposterous usage which she met with” from the reformers. Nor can there be a greater satire upon the general character of Mary, (previous to her first marriage,) than to say, that “she found every moment reason to regret her leaving that country, from whose manners