AN HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF CHARLES I. KING OF GREAT BRITAIN. CHARLES STUART, second son of James I. king of Great Britain, by Ann of Denmark, was born at Dumfermling, in Scotland, November the 19th, 1600*. He was baptized on Tuesday December the 23d, in the royal chapel, by David Lindsay, bishop of Ross, with great solemnity, according to Mr. Carte'; though other writers give a different account'. Though other writers give a different account.] Calderwood speaks of the birth of prince Charles, but mentions not a word about his baptism. He was born, * Perinchief's Life of Charles I. prefixed to his works, p. 1. fol. Lond. 1687. D Carte's History of England, vol. III. p. 679. fol, Lond. 1752. VOL. II. B At three years old he was committed to the care and government of Sir Robert Cary's lady; and in his fourth year he was brought to the English court, where he was made Knight of the Bath, and invested with says he, upon the 19th of November, about eleven hours at night, the same day that Gowrie and his brother's carcasses were dismembered "' Spotswood observes, that his christening was hastened because of the weakness of the child, and that his death was much feared. Thus also Perinchief, in the very page referred to in the text, tells us, that he was born in so much weakness, that his baptism was hastened, without the usual ceremonies wherewith such royal infants are admitted into the church.' Here are very different accounts, we see, of the baptism of this prince; but which is most worthy of belief must be left to the reader to determine. All I shall say is, that if the young prince. had received the benefit of episcopal baptism, (a benefit never sufficiently to be valued, in the opinion of some very grave and learned writers, as it gives special privileges and advantages both here and hereafter) it is amazing that archbishop Spotswood and doctor Perinchief should either have been ignorant of it, or neglected to have mentioned it. But truth is frequently brought to light by time; and Mr. Carte, an hundred and fifty years after the ceremony was performed, tells us the name of the bishop, the solemnity used, and the place where it was used, when all others seem to have a Calderwood's History of the Church of Scotland, p. 446. fol. Edinb. 1680. b History of the Church of Scotland, p. 461. fol. Lond. 1668. the title of duke of York. The particulars of that solemnity, as they may be acceptable to some readers, I will give in the note*. known nothing about it! However, such as have opportunity may consult MS. in Offic. Leon reg; Armor. the authority referred to, in his margin, by Mr. Carte, for it. 2 The particulars of that solemnity I will give in the note.] We are indebted to Sir Dudley Carleton for the following account, which was contained in a letter to Mr. Winwood, written from London, Jan. 1604.' On Twelfth-day we had the creation of duke Charles, now duke of York: the interim was entertained with making knights of the Bath, which was three days work. They were eleven in number, besides the little *This MS. so pompously quoted by Mr. Carte, is, I apprehend, the same piece which is printed in the Appendix to the Attempt towards the Character of the Royal Martyr King Charles I. Lond. 8vo. 1738, which is said to be copied from a MS. in the Lyon's Office, written by John Blinsele, Ilay-herald, who assisted at the baptism: I say, I apprehend Carte's MS. and this to be one and the same thing, because it gives exactly the same account of the pompous baptism of Charles, by David Lindsay, bishop of Ross, with what Carte quotes from his MS. But from the printed account the MS. appears to be an arrant forgery, the work of some ignorant person, who knew not the times of which he was writing, and consequently his work must be mere invention: for he represents the chancellor Cassils as present at the solemnity, though there was no such chancellor then in being; and he tells us, that monsieur de Rohan, a nobleman of Brittany, and his brother, called monsieur de Soubise, were his Majesty's gossips; though the Scotch historians never mention their being in that kingdom. In short, the writer of the account given in that Appendix, (which yet but a quotation from a book printed at London, 1716 by Mr. Henry Cantrel, called the Royal Martyr a true Christian) evidently appears to have had more zeal for the episcopal baptism of Charles than regard to truth, or even his own character. Authors that invent history, have so many circumstances to consider and provide for, to render their accounts consistent, that they need a far more extensive knowledge than generally falls to the share of such writers, to secure them from detection and contempt. In the sixth year of his age he was committed to the tuition of Mr. Thomas Murray, a person well qualified for that office, though duke, all of the king's choice. The solemnity of the creation was kept in the hall, where first the duke was brought in, accompanied with his knights; then carried out again, and brought back by earls in their robes of the Garter. My lord-admiral bare him, two others went as supporters, and six marched before with the ornaments. The patent was read by my lord of Cranborne, and drawn in most eloquent law Latin by Mr. Attorney; but so, that we have a duke of York in title, but not in substance. There was a public dinner in the great chamber, where there was one table for the duke and his earls assistants, another for his fellowknights of the Bath. At night we had the queen's mask in the banquetting house, or rather her pagent. There was a great engine at the lower end of the room, which had motion, and in it were the images of seahorses, with other terrible fishes, which were ridden by Moors. The indecorum was, that there was all fish and no water. At the further end was a great shell in form of a skallop, wherein were four seats. On the lowest sat the queen, with my lady Bedford; on the rest were placed the ladies Suffolk, Darby, Rich, Effingham, Ann Herbert, Susan Herbert, Elizabeth Howard, Walsingham, and Bevil. Their apparel was rich, but too light and curtezan-like for such great ones. Instead of vizards, their faces and arms, up to the elbows, were painted black, which disguise was sufficient; for they were hard to be known: but it became them nothing so well as their red and white; and you cannot imagine a more ugly sight, than a troop of lean-cheeked Moors. The Spanish and Venetian ambassadors were both pre a favourer' of presbytery. Under this sent, and sat by the king in state; at which monsieur Beaumont quarrels so extremely, that he saith the whole court is Spanish. But, by his favour, he should fall out with none but himself; for they were all indifferently invited to come as private men to a private sport; which he refusing, the Spanish ambassador willingly accepted, and being there, seeing no cause to the contrary, he put off Don Taxis, and took upon him El Senor Embaxador, wherein he outstrips our little Monsieur. He was privately at the first mask, and sat amongst his men disguised: at this he was taken out to dance, and footed it like a lusty old gallant with his countrywoman. He took out the queen, and forgot not to kiss her hand, though there was danger it would have left a mark on his lips. The night's work was concluded with a banquet in the great chamber, which was so furiously assaulted, that down went table and tresses before one bit was touched.' The reader perhaps is disposed to smile at the indecorum mentioned by Sir Dudley, and to censure the light and curtezanlike attire of the ladies; but the present age has little room to exult over them with respect to propriety or decency, as those who are acquainted with public places and public entertainments well know. 3 Thomas Murray, a favourer of presbytery.] This is a fact not to be disputed. There is a letter in the Cabala from Dr. Williams, bishop of Lincoln, and lordkeeper to the duke of Buckingham, dated Feb. 23, 1621, concerning the promotion of this gentleman to the provostship of Eton. In this letter, Williams a Perinchief's Life of King Charles, p. 2. Winwood's Memorials of Affairs of State, vol. II. p. 43. folio. Lond. 1725. |