Queen Mary's rooms (fig. 6), and there is no trace of windows sufficient to lead to the belief that it ever was a residence of Henry Darnley. It does not need much penetration to notice where the existing windows of Darnley's rooms have been reconstructed, thus accounting for the difference between the present aspect and that of Rothiemay's large front view (fig. 4). His rooms were below those of the Queen, and on the first floor, and an inspection of the masonry shows where they have been remodelled. Previous to the conflagration of 1650, the pinnacles of the turrets were finished with fanciful devices like imperial crowns, now replaced by plain spiral terminal tops. The roof was high and pointed with a fanlike west front, where now it is flat and battlemented. At the foot of the left empty panel may be seen the shelf-like strip on which Wilson tells us the words "Jacobus V. Rex Scotorum" were inscribed; and clear traces of the filled-up sockets where the iron bars of the windows were embedded are quite visible. The first floor appeared to be barred on the inner side of the lintels close to the glass, but the two upper floorsviz., Queen Mary's rooms and the jail-were protected by iron gratings fixed, prison-like, on the outer face of the walls, a striking commentary on the state of society and value of human life even in a royal palace at that time. At the foot of the west front of the Towers the ground has been lowered about 3 feet, particularly at the north-west corner. At the north side may be easily seen the new masonry filled in when taking down the building called "Regent Moray's house" (fig. 5). None of the historians take the slightest notice of this building; even our local writers, Arnot and Maitland, completely ignore it, though it was there during their lifetime. It may have been the house of Lord Robert, however, if we bear in mind that Regent Moray's mansion was said to be in Croft-an-Righ, and also if we give any weight to the following extract from the Diurnal of Occurrents:-"The next day Lennox rode in state to the Abbey of Holyrood, and entered the lodging which had been honourably prepared for him in the house of Mary's brother, the Lord Robert, Commendator of Holyrood, beside the said Abbey." On the flat north wall of the Towers, the air-slots which were left in the elevation (whence, in the middle of this century, the so-called Regent Moray's was removed) are plainly seen, and guide us to the position of the private stair which is built, not in the Tower as is generally thought, but entirely within the wall, which at this spot is 7 feet thick. At the bottom of the wall no trace of a doorway is to be seen, leading us to the belief that the exit was inside the ground floor of the palace, thence along to the Abbey. Higher up, near the jail windows, we see the single slot which lights and airs a secret stair of singular width and construction leading into the prison. This wall joins on to the largest of the three Towers which contains the stair leading up to Queen Mary's rooms, the jail, some store-rooms, and the roof. On the ground floor of this north-east Tower another private stair ends; but on the walls outside there are no signs of exit, which must have also been through the basement. And in Queen Mary's audience chamber, near the entrance door where Rizzio was flung to die, is another private stair built inside the wall, and leading up to opposite the jail door. These Towers, at all events, whoever was their original founder, show a width and strength explanatory of their being the sole survivors of the original Palace of Holyrood. If we take the west front, we find a thickness of 7 feet, and at the turrets 4 feet. The east face, which was originally clear of all buildings towards the Abbey, is of the same thickness, viz., 7 feet. The north and south walls are fully 6 feet, and the wall dividing the Towers from the more modern palace of Charles Second is over 5 feet. The external changes, from 1543 till Cromwell's time, may be summed up briefly: alterations on Lord Darnley's floor, on the panels, on the roof and turret tops, and on the north side. The roof, in particular, is first shown with flat-topped turrets, then with high pitched roof and pointed turrets as at present, then with the crowntopped pinnacles and high roof, and finally the present elevation. The power given by Charles Second to Sir William Bruce to punish the refractory operatives at the rebuilding of Holyrood in 1671-9, is, in the light of modern Trades Unionism, so very curious in its phraseology, and points so clearly to our "auld toure prison," that a quotation may be pardoned: -"With power also to the said Sir William Bruce, during the space aforesaid, to do all other things necessary and requisite as to him shall seem expedient, and to punish, mulet, incarcerate, and amerce delinquents and transgressors at the said works and courts, by himself or his deputes (as oft as need shall be), for this purpose, within the said palaces, houses, and precincts thereof to us pertaining.” 1 There is little to add which bears sufficient interest, as we are now nearing the top of the old Towers, Half a flight up the principal stair, › Proceedings, vol. vi., Third Series, pp. 60 61. and immediately under the flat lead-covered roof, are some store-rooms which must have been frequently subjected to harsh usage and much change. A few steps more and the roof is reached, round the battlements of which there is the usual narrow way. The turret tops have entrance from this path. The leaden capes and the three upper courses of masonry towards the front are quite of recent date, and evidently the result of kindly watchfulness over the grand old Towers, which, for nigh four centuries, have weathered every storm, and proudly borne the name of the gallant Fifth James. II. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON THE SCOTTISH DE QUENCYS. Though it was a source of gratification to me that so distinguished an archæologist as Mr Joseph Bain should have taken the trouble to add filling-in to the sketch which I essayed of the Scottish de Queneys of Tranent and Leuchars, it lessened the pleasure when he indicated a number of errors which he thought I had committed. As most of these corrections were on points of minute detail, I was unable, after hearing his paper read at a meeting of the Society on the 11th December, to do more than make a general defence. Having now had time to go back to my authorities, I ask an opportunity of showing how some of these corrections cannot be sustained. Mr Bain began by saying that it was to be regretted I had not consulted some works, which he named, in addition to those which I referred to. My essay was almost wholly written from original documents, hence I did not think it needful to quote compilations like Burke's Dictionary of Extinct Peerages, of which, nevertheless, I had made some use. And as for not consulting the Cartulary of St Andrews, I referred to it in a note (see p. 277 of my paper in the Proceedings of the Society of Anti1 See antea, p. 124; and vol. xxxii. p. 275. VOL. XXXIV. quaries, vol. xxxii.). I unwittingly passed over the four volumes of the Calendar of Scottish Documents, edited by Mr Bain himself, which he mentions at the end of his list. In these volumes there are several notes about the de Quencys, which, if I had lighted upon them before, would have saved me much trouble and some errors of detail. Mr Bain tells us that "there is no evidence that the de Quencys came from Normandy with William. The Roll of Battle Abbey is well known to be of little, if any, authority, and it has been thought by some, the late Mr John Gough Nichols for one, that they came from Gascony-their arms, mascles, representing a kind of flint found there. The first who appears in the English pipe-rolls is Saher de Quency, in 1157, in Northamptonshire, where he was remitted on his land." I cannot here discuss the trustworthiness of the Roll of Battle Abbey. Those who are curious on this question should consult the books which have been written about it, especially that by John Bernard Burke, and the three quarto volumes contributed by the Duchess of Cleveland. After relating the foundation of this abbey by William the Conqueror, Sir Francis Palgrave tells us that "here the monks enrolled before a Degville or a Darey, a Pigot or a Percy, a Bruce or a Despencer," or other Normans, "the roll containing the honoured names of the companions of the Conqueror from whom they deduced their lineage and their names." The objection to this document is that, in later times, the monks allowed names to be added to the roll to please people who wished to claim descent from the first Norman conquerors. The document, at all events, has always been held in high estimation by the old chroniclers. There are several independent copies of it, and the name of Quincy is in them all. We have thus to consider the probability of this name being fraudulently added before the death of Roger de Quency in 1264, for after that time no one would have an interest in such a transaction. 1 The Roll of Battle Abbey, annotated by John Bernard Burke, Esq.; London, 1848, The Battle Abbey Roll, with some account of the Norman Lineages, by the Duchess of Cleveland, vol. iii. p. 27; London, 18×9. The History of Normandy and of Egland, by Sir Francis Palgrave, K.H., the Deputy Keeper of H. M.S. Public Records, vol. iii. p. 407; London, 1864. |