Home › The Tudors and the Stuarts › The Tudors and the Stuarts: Parliament

The Tudors and the Stuarts: Parliament

Parliament had given the new regent powers for the recovery of the Queen's diamonds and moveables which had fallen into private hands, and he hastened to proceed against all who had jewels and household stuff in their keeping, whether by gift, by purchase, in pledge for monies lent, or otherwise. He recovered six jewels which had been pawned with the Provost of Edinburgh for 2,600 marks, and a pearl necklace, and fifteen diamonds which had been pawned to Lady Home for pound 600. The "Great Harry" was recovered from the widow Moray, after fruitless endeavours to obtain it. This jewel survived James's accession to the English throne, when its large diamond was taken to adorn a new and still more splendid jewel, the "Mirror of Great Britain," which is thus described in the "Inventory of the Jewels in the Tower of London, March 22nd, 1605," in ancient calendars, and in the "Inventories of the Treasury of the Exchequer" (vol. ii. p. 305), "A greate and ryche jewell of golde, called the Myrror of Great Brytayne, conteyninge one verie fayre table diamonde; one verye fayre table rubye; twoe other lardge diamondes cut lozengewise, the one of them called the stone of the letter H (h) of Scotlande, garnyshed with small diamondes, twoe rounde perles, fixed, and one fayre dyamonde cutt in fawcettis, bought of Sauncey."

We find what remained of the "Great Harry," the gold-setting, the chain, and the ruby, among the jewels for which the king gave a discharge to the Earl of Dunbar in July, 1606; "The jewell callit the H, with the chaine thairof, and als with the rubie of the samyn." (Thomson's "Collection of Inventories.") The widow of Moray had baffled Queen Mary, Huntley, and Lennox, and did not yield to the Regent Morton without an obstinate struggle, in which the English Queen had to interpose again and again. On February 3rd, 1573-4, the Regent Morton and the Lords of the Council gave judgment against the countess and her second husband, the Earl of Argyle, for refusing to restore, or even to produce, "thre greit rubyes and thre greit dyamontis, with ane greit jewell in the forme of an H set with dyamontis." An appeal was at once taken to Parliament. On July 18th, 1574, Killigrew writes to Walsingham as to the need of Queen Elizabeth's interference for my Lord of Argyle and his lady. On August 12th we hear of the conditions upon which the Regent of Scotland, at the request of the Queen of England, will agree that the Earl and Countess of Argyle shall retain in their hands certain jewels belonging to the King of Scotland. Seven days afterwards the earl and the countess write to Queen Elizabeth thanking her for her intercession with the regent. On the same day the earl writes to Killigrew that he means to agree to the conditions proposed to him and the countess in respect of the king's jewels, in regard of which they had been so extremely handled. A conference took place between the regent and the earl, but the result was unsatisfactory; and on September 10th the countess writes once more to Queen Elizabeth complaining of further demands made by the regent respecting the king's jewels, and requesting that her majesty will again write to him. Nine days after, there is a letter from Robert Fletcher to Killigrew urging the necessity of the English Queen's intercession. At length, on March 5th, 1574-5, the Earl of Argyle appears before the regent in council, and delivers up "ane greit H of diamont, with ane rubye pendant thairat; sex uther jowellis, thairof thre dyamontis and the uther thre rubyis intromettit with and kepit bi the said Dame Agnes and hir said spous, sen the deceis of the said umquhile Erll of Moray." There are many curious and deeply-interesting relics of Mary Queen of Scots in the possession of favoured individuals, of undoubted genuine character. Amongst these Miss Strickland mentions a watch of French workmanship belonging to the Rev. Mr. Torrance, minister of Glencross, which, together with an elegant little jewel called a solitaire, were given, or bequeathed by Mary, the night before her execution, to a French lady named Massie, the ancestress of the late possessor, Dr. Scott. The watch itself is small and circular, in a black shagreen case, studded with gold stars, with a central cross formed of fleurs-delys. The dial plate is of white enamel, somewhat larger than a shilling, with antique Roman figures in black. The maker's name is Etienne Hubert, of Rouen. A thread of catgut supplies the place of the chain used in the works of modern watches. The catgut is not found in watches later than those of the sixteenth century. The solitaire is one of those light elegant triangular jewels, with which the portraits of Mary are sometimes adorned, having a tiny enameled Cupid in the character of a court fool, with his cap, bells, and bauble. This jewel is of the most delicate workmanship, and of purest gold, the gems are tablecut diamonds, and garnets, and pendant pearls. On the back of the straight bar, under the little figure, is a Latin motto, signifying, "He looks simple, but he is not."