[55] Freebairn's translation of Bois Guilbert, p. 32, et seq.--Knox's History, p. 307.--Chalmers, vol. i. p. 62, and vol. ii. p. 212.--Keith, p. 215 and 216.--and Goodall, vol. i. p. 191. [56] Knox, p. 302.--Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 425. [57] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 78.; vol. ii. p. 293, et seq.; and p. 426, et seq. [58] Knox, p. 315.; Goodall, vol. i. p. 192.--Chalmers says, that Sir John Gordon's antagonist was not a Lord Ogilvy, but only James Ogilvy of Cardell, a son of the deceased Alexander Ogilvy of Findlater. But as he does not give any authority for this assertion, we have preferred following Knox, Goodall, and Robertson. [59] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 80.; and vol. ii. p. 298. [60] Keith, p. 225. [61] Keith, p. 226. [62] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 84, and vol. ii. p. 302. [63] Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 306. [64] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 90. [65] "The time and place for perpetrating this horrid deed," says Robertson, "were frequently appointed; but the executing of it was wonderfully prevented by some of those unforeseen accidents which so often occur to disconcert the schemes, and to intimidate the hearts of assassins." There is something strangely inconsistent between this statement, and that which Robertson makes immediately afterwards in a note, where he says,--"We have imputed the violent conduct of the Earl of Huntly to a sudden start of resentment, without charging him with any premeditated purpose of rebellion." And that Huntly did not intend to seize the Queen and her ministers, the historian argues upon these grounds:--"1st, On the Queen's arrival in the North, he laboured in good earnest to gain her favour, and to obtain a pardon for his son.--2d, He met the Queen, first at Aberdeen and then at Rothiemay, whither he would not have ventured to come had he harboured any such treasonable resolution.--3d, His conduct was irresolute and wavering, like that of a man disconcerted by an unforeseen danger, not like one executing a concerted plan.--4th, The most considerable persons of his clan submitted to the Queen, and found surety to obey her commands; had the Earl been previously determined to rise in arms against the Queen, or to seize her ministers, it is probable he would have imparted it to his principal followers, nor would they have deserted him in this manner," Yet in direct opposition to this view of the matter, Robertson, in telling the story of Huntly's wrongs, throws upon him the whole blame, and entirely exculpates Murray.--Robertson, vol. i. p. 222, et seq. [66] Chalmers, vol. i. p. 93, and vol. ii. p. 306. [67] Keith, p. 226. [68] Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 307.