[74] Chalmers, in his account of the opening of this Parliament, seems to have committed an error. He says, (vol. i. p. 105.) "The Queen came to Parliament in her robes _and was crowned_." That any coronation took place, is not at all likely. Chalmers surely had forgotten that Mary was crowned at Stirling by Cardinal Beaton just twenty years before. There was no reason why the ceremony should have been repeated. Chalmers' mistake is probably founded upon the following passage, in a letter of Randolph's, quoted by Keith, p. 239--"The Parliament began 26th May, on which day the Queen came to it in her robes _and crowned_." The word _was_ is an interpolation of Chalmers. But as Randolph goes on immediately to say,--"The Duke carried the crown, Argyle the sceptre, &c.," Chalmers probably thought Mary could not at the same time wear the crown. But the crown of state, carried upon state occasions, was no doubt different from the crown made expressly to be worn by the reigning Queen. Buchanan puts the matter beyond a doubt, for he says explicitly;--"The Queen, _with the crown on her head_, and in her royal robes, went in great pomp to the Parliament House--a new sight to many." Buchanan's History, Book xvii. [75] Knox's History of the Reformation, p. 332 et seq. [76] Knox, p. 345. [77] Keith, p. 206 and 249.--Chalmers, vol. i. p. 65, et seq.--Whittaker, vol. iii, p. 334.--Miss Benger, vol. ii, p. 145, et seq. [78] These violars were all Scotchmen, and two of them were of the name of Dow,--"a name," says Chalmers, "consecrated to music." Having never heard of this consecration before, we think it not unlikely that Chalmers has mistaken Dow for Gow. _Vide_ Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 72. [79] Jebb, vol. ii. p. 202. Chalmers, vol. i. p. 95, and vol. ii. p. 156. Tytler's Enquiry, vol. ii. p. 4 et seq.; Histoire de Marie Stuart, p. 218; and Laing, vol. i. p. 10. [80] Melville's Memoirs, p. 110-30. The French historian Castelnau, speaks in exactly similar terms. When sent by the King of France as ambassador to Mary, "I found that princess," he says, "in the flower of her age, esteemed and adored by her subjects, and sought after by all neighbouring states, in so much that there was no great fortune or alliance that she might not have aspired to, not only because she was the relation and successor of the Queen of England, but because she was endowed with more graces and perfection of beauty than any other princess of her time."--Castelnau in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 460. [81] Keith, p. 269.--Chalmers, vol. i. p. 123.