warranted, by the misconduct and crimes of Mary, to remove her from the government, and to crown her son. “Her boldest advocates,” says Mr Laing, “will not venture to assert, that, on the supposition of the fact being fully proved, that she was notoriously guilty of her husband’s murder, she was entitled to be restored.” History of Scotland, i. 137, second edition. Murray was fully satisfied of her guilt before he accepted the regency. Never was any person raised to such a high station with less evidence of his having ambitiously courted the preferment. Instead of remaining in the country to turn the embroiled state of affairs to his personal advantage, he, within two months after the murder of the king, left Scotland, not clandestinely, but after having asked and obtained leave. And whither did he retire? Not into England, to concert measures with that court, or the more easily to carry on a correspondence with the friends whom he had left behind him; but into France, where his motions could be watched by the friends of Mary. Ibid. p. 59‒61. The association for revenging the king’s murder, and for preserving the young prince, the surrender of Mary, and her imprisonment in Lochleven, followed so unexpectedly and so {337} rapidly, that they could not have proceeded from his direction. Nay, there is positive evidence that the lords who had imprisoned Mary, so far from having acted in concert with Murray, were suspicious that he would counteract their designs. “As yet theys lordes wyll not suffer Mr Nycholas Elveston, sent from the L. of Murrey, to have access to the quene, nor to send my L. of Murrey’s letter unto her.” Throkmorton’s Letters to Cecil, and to Elizabeth, 16th July, 1567, apud Laing’s History of Scotland, ii. Append. No. 13, p. 121, 126. When he returned to Scotland, he found that the queen had executed formal deeds resigning the government, and appointing him regent during the minority of her son, and that the young prince was already crowned. Hume, vol. v. Note K.