20th of July

St Joseph Barsabas, confessor, 1st century. Saints Justa and Rufina, martyrs, 304. St Margaret, virgin and martyr, beginning of 4th century. St Aurelius, archbishop of Carthage, confessor, 423. St Ulmar, or Wulmar, abbot of Samer, 710. St Ceslas, confessor, of the order of St Dominic, 1242. St Jerom Aemiliani, confessor, 1537.

 

Born. – Petrach, Italian poet, 1304 (O. S.), Arezzo, in Tuscany; Eusebius Renaudot, oriental scholar, 1646, Paris; Auguste de Marmont, Duke of Ragusa, Bonapartist general, 1774, Chatillon-sur-Seine; Sultan Mahmoud II., 1785; John Sterling, poet and essayist, 1806, Kames Castle, Bute.       
Died. – Robert the Wise, king of France, 1031, Melun; Peter Lombard, bishop of Paris, 1164; Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, 1332, Musselburgh.

 

On this Day in Other Sources.

 

The unfriendly measures of Elizabeth, in Scotland, were, probably, intended, to facilitate her solicitations of Mary’s acceptance of the treaty of Edinburgh, while she complimented the Scotish Queen, on the recovery of her health. On the 20th of July 1561, when the Queen was on her journey, for Scotland, she fairly met the embassador, Throckmorton, by appointment, to discuss this litigated subject. This is the first display of the Scotish Queen, when she was going nineteen, and without advisers, to discuss, singly, with an experienced Statesman, the fitness of refusing her ratification of the treaty of Edinburgh: and, on this memorable occasion, she exhibited great talents for business, great firmness of resolution, great vigour of head, and still greater sensibility of heart: In the end, she desired to go over the several articles of the treaty, that he might judge, “whether they be not very cogent reasons, which his Queen takes, for vain excuses, and delays: – The 1st article in that treaty, for confirming the truce of Cambray, does not, in the least concern me: the 2d, which relates to the signing the treaty there made, between the English, and Scots, as ratified, by my husband, who is expressly named therein: the 3d, 4th, and 5th articles, are already fulfilled; I have, since my husband’s death, quitted the arms, and titles, of England; to raze, and strike them out of all the moveables, buildings, and charters, in France, is a thing no way, in my power; and it is more than I can do, to send back the Bishop of Valence, and Randan, who are no subjects of mine, into England; to a conference, about the 6th article: as for the last article, I hope my rebel subjects will not complain of any great severity towards them. But your mistress, I perceive, designs to prevent any proofs, I might show of a merciful disposition, towards them, by resolving to hinder my return. What is there now behind, in this treaty, than can any way prejudice the affairs of your mistress? Nevertheless, to give her the fullest satisfaction, I design to write to her about these matters, with my own hand, though she would not vouchsafe me an answer, but by her Secretary. But, I would advise you, who are an ambassador, to act, suitably, to that character; I mean, rather to qualify, and compose matters, than to aggravate, and make them worse.” Such was the display of the Scotish Queen, which evinces her talents, for the affairs of state! Only those men, who are in the habit of public business, could run over the several articles of an intricate treaty; so as to point out the true meaning of each. The whole negotiation shows, that Elizabeth, by urging so much the ratification of this treaty, was quite wrong; while Mary was quite right, in resisting it: Elizabeth seems to have supposed, that the Scotish Queen had not a right to refuse her acceptance of what her ambassadors had no right to discuss; and much less, had no authority to enter into a stipulation, that she never would claim the crown of England, after the demise of Elizabeth. Hard, indeed, would be the conditions of sovereigns, if they could not disallow a treaty, which might have been made, by the ignorance, the folly, or the treachery, of their servants.  

– Life of Mary, pp.15-41.

 

On the 20th of July [1565], she created Darnley, who was already Earl of Ross, Duke of Albany; and conferred on him all the property, and privileges, which belonged to the dukedom. She had now received the approbation of the Cardinal of Lorraine, her uncle, and the dispensation of the Pope: And she was, probably, advised, by the justice clerk, Sir John Bellenden, that it might be well to have the banns of marriage, between her, and Albany, proclaimed, in the appropriate parish church. 

– Life of Mary, pp.98-126.

 

It is apparent, then, that in the period, from the 20th of July [1567] to the 4th of December, Murray, and Morton, and Maitland, had shifted their ground: Her private letters, written, and signed, and sent by her to Bothwell, were the only proofs, which they now brought against her: But, where, and when, and how, were those interesting letters found? Morton, the falsifier, averred, that not far from Edinburgh castle, on the 20th of June then passed, he had intercepted Bothwell’s servant, Dalgleish, bearing a gilt box, full of the Queen’s private letters, from Sir James Balfour, the governor of Edinburgh castle, to Bothwell, at Dunbar. Such is the averment of this falsifier; this assassin of Rizzio; this murderer of the King. Dalgleish was still alive; Was he sent for, and examined? No. Was he examined when taken? No. He was examined on the 26th of June, six days after his interception, about the King’s murder; yet, not a word was asked him, about the boxful of letters. Was Sir James Balfour, who was sitting in the Privy Council, on the 4th of December, examined, on this interesting subject? No. Was Morton, himself, examined? No. Were the box, and letters, laid before the Privy Council, on that occasion? No. The record of that Privy Council is silent, on this head; and it, only says, that such letters existed somewhere: They were not, therefore, produced, before the eyes of the privy counsellors: Now; what does not appear, must be supposed, in all fair discussion, not to exist. When the noble insurgents entered Holyrood-house, they took possession of the Queen’s plate, jewels, and other moveables, as well as her private papers, which were deposited there: But, did they find any letter, or paper, or writing, which would, in any manner, verify, or support, those supposititious privy letters, mentioned, in the act of Privy Council, but not produced? The answer must be, that no such discovery was ever pretended. Now; the only affirmative proof, which was brought of the existence of such supposititious letters, was the averment of Morton, the falsifier, the murderer, the traitor: But, those circumstantial negative proofs, which have been adduced above, would weigh down, in the fair estimate of reason, and judgment, a thousand such averments of such a man.  

– Life of Mary, pp.184-206.

 

Cornaro’s proofs were unsatisfactory, and other claims had to be settled. He wrote again, therefore, on the 20th of July [1582], begging that “his cause might be speedily despatched, as every day new creditors were appearing and delay might cause him great loss.” In this letter appearing and delay might cause him great loss.” In this letter we hear the first note of accusation against Crichton, “for whom,” says the writer, “I have suffered so much. May it please God to pardon him the evil conduct which he, contrary to all his obligations, has used towards me; whence one could judge of the success of that youth, only well known by me, after he had passed to another life!”1

– Scots Lore, pp.238-252.

1  … onde si potria far giudizio della riuscita di quel giovane, non bene conosciuto da me se non doppo ch’è passato ad’ altra vita…

 

July 20 [1625]. – By the royal command, a fast was held throughout Scotland, in consequence of the heavy rains which had prevailed since the middle of May, threatening the destruction of the fruits of the earth. It was a time of calamity. 

– Domestic Annals, pp.228-256.

 

In [20th] July, 1741, as already mentioned, the Glasgow Journal was started, under the editorship of Andrew Stalker. It was well printed, but it exhibited little of the courage of journalism. During the rebellion of 1745 accounts of many of the most important events were suppressed, and at last the editor got so terrified that he retired from the management, announcing as his reason that “considering the situation of affairs, I cannot with safety publish so as to please the generality of my readers.” 

– Old Glasgow, pp.299-307.

One thought on “20th of July

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s