were not squandered in unavailing efforts, and by unfaithful stewards.
On the 20th of March, Sadler reported his arrival and reception at Edinburgh, where Sir George Douglas had partially introduced him behind the scenes. There had been sad work, Douglas told him. At one time the Catholic Earls, Huntly, Argyle, Murray, and Bothwell, had threatened to make a party with the clergy, and hold an opposition Parliament at Perth. He had not slept three hours any night since his return from England. But the worst was over, and he trusted that at last all would go well. 'They had grinned at each other, but there was none that would bite;' and if the King would be contented with slow progress, he believed that it would be sure. This much, however, was certain, that if at present the delivery of the Queen, or the custody of the fortresses, was insisted on, Beton would be set at liberty, the French would be called in to assist, and all that had been accomplished would bo undone. 'There was not so little a boy but he would hurl stones at it, the wives would handle their distaffs, and the commons universally would die in it.'[1] Douglas might be right, but he had used different language
- ↑ Sir Ralph Sadler to Henry VIII.: Sadler Papers, vol. i. p. 70. One of the many critics who have undertaken to expose my erroneous estimate of the character of Henry VIII. has quoted these words (changing the 'it' into 'him,' and the 'in' into 'against '), as an evidence of the detestation with which the King was regarded by his subjects. I presume that he had seen the passage in a quotation, and was too well satisfied with the burden of it to inquire from what despatch or document it was taken. But the fallacy of extracts could scarcely be carried further.
