  Produced by Al Haines. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS IN HISTORY BY MONTREAL: Copyright, 1903, by PREFACE. Much as has been written about Mary Queen of Scots, it would be difficult to find in our language a biography of her that recommends itself to busy readers by its brevity, whilst furnishing data and arguments with respect to controverted points in her history, intended to give satisfaction to inquiring minds. If the present work has done thus much, it has accomplished the aim of THE AUTHOR.
CONTENTS. CHAPTER I.-- MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. CHAPTER I. THE SCOTLAND OF MARY'S BIRTH. No tale of romance possesses a more lasting charm than does the simple history of Mary Stewart, Queen of Scots. Since the day on which Sir Ralph Sadler, Ambassador of Queen Elizabeth, was privileged to see her in the nursery at Linlithgow, and pronounced her a "right fair and goodly child," every fresh contribution to her history has been welcomed with unparalleled eagerness. Nor is there any indication that her life-story will lose its fascination with the lapse of time. Scarcely a year passes away that does not see a considerable addition made to the already ponderous store of Mary-Stewart literature. Nevertheless, very many even of her admirers have, to say the least, an inadequate knowledge of her life. They know her only as a heroine of romance, or as a pious widow, kneeling in devotion with the Rosary hanging at her girdle, or as a cheerful martyr resigning her head to the block; and they forget that for seven years she reigned over the most turbulent nation of Europe, that she opened and closed parliament, deliberated in the Council Chamber, led armies to the field, that, in a word, she lived a most real and stirring life. I confess it is no easy task to present a complete and, at the same time, correct picture of her career. The difficulty is owing to the large amount of matter, written in different and contradictory spirits, with which some of the most important events of her life have been obscured. Religion, politics, patriotism, avarice, personal friendships and hatreds, either conjointly or individually, determined the actions of those who had part in framing the history of the period. It becomes necessary, therefore, to learn how far the men on whose testimony, or from whose conduct, we have to pass judgment on certain incidents in Mary's life, were influenced by one or other of these motives. Mary Queen of Scots was born in Linlithgow Palace, in Scotland, on the 8th of December, 1542. The condition of Scotland at the time was sad and evil-boding. Her father, the well-beloved James V., was at Falkland, dying of a broken heart, in consequence of the humiliating conduct of the disaffected Scottish nobles at Solway Moss. When told that a daughter had been born to him at Linlithgow, he gave no sign of pleasure, but sadly said, "God's will be done." Then, his memory reverting to the person through whom the Stewarts had ascended the throne of Scotland, he added, "It (the crown) came with a lass and it will go with a lass." He died shortly after, in the thirty-first year of his age, leaving to his distracted country an infant queen, only six days old. The care of the young queen devolved on her mother, Mary of Lorraine, a lady of the famous French house of Guise. Did the scope of the present sketch but sanction the digression, I should be pleased to dwell a little on the character of this distinguished woman, whose memory some historians have, according to their custom, endeavoured to blacken, but who stands out in the judgment of the best historians of every creed as a generous, forgiving and heroic woman, who conscientiously defended the rights of her daughter and maintained the laws of Scotland, until an edifying and pathetic death withdrew her from the troubled scenes in which the years of her widowhood had been passed. It is the privilege, or perhaps the misfortune, of rulers, that their marriage is one of the first things that engage the attention of their people; and while the nursery was disturbed by the cries of the infant queen, the councils of England and Scotland were agitated with the question of her marriage. Henry VIII., of England, had an infant son, Edward, afterwards Edward VI., for whom he wished to secure from the Scottish parliament a solemn promise of marriage with the young Queen of Scots. As might be presumed, it was not so much the desire of cultivating the friendship of his northern neighbours that actuated the English monarch, as the hope of accomplishing, by means of a marriage, what his predecessors had failed to accomplish by means of the sword, the subjugation of the Scottish kingdom. To have a clear conception of the political relations between the two countries, and to understand the foundation of the English claims, it will be necessary to take a retrospective glance at the history of Scotland. In 844, the Scots of Dalriada and various Pictish races became united under King Kenneth McAlpine. During the reign of Malcolm I., who ascended the throne of Alban a hundred years later, the district of Cumberland was, by Edmund of England, made over to the King of Scotland, on condition that the latter should, in return, render him certain assistance in time of war. The acquisition of other districts fronting the Scottish border was subsequently made, in return for offered assistance against the common enemy--the Danes. But the annexation of Cumberland was the principal source of the endless conflicts between the sister kingdoms, until the union of the crowns under James VI. For those possessions which he had acquired within the kingdom of England, the Scottish king was obliged to pay homage to his neighbouring monarch. In the course of time, however, the English Kings began to claim that the homage they received from Scotland was for the entire Scottish kingdom, as well as for the Scottish possessions within the English borders. This the Scots denied, protesting that, while paying homage for the English border lands which they had acquired, they were a free and independent people. Such a state of affairs may seem strange to us, but it was nothing uncommon in those feudal times. William the Conqueror, for instance, although independent sovereign of England, paid homage to the King of France for the dukedom of Normandy, which he held within French territory. In those circumstances, any English king who might desire to make war against Scotland could always put forward the old claim as a plea for his action. Unfortunately, the Scottish parliament, in order to secure the release of their King, William the Lion, on one occasion acknowledged the English claim of suzerainty. A few years later, however, Richard the Lion-hearted renounced the English claim, on payment by Scotland of a certain sum of money, which that chivalrous crusader needed to defray the expenses of his expedition to the Holy Land. The country remained independent for about one hundred years; then disputes concerning the rightful successor to Alexander III. having disunited and weakened the Scottish people, Edward I. found the time opportune for renewing the old claim. Twelve competitors for the throne appeared in the field, who, being not altogether averse to sacrificing national honour to personal advantage, were willing to acknowledge the supremacy of England, in order to win the invaluable influence of Edward for their respective causes. The principal claimants were Robert Bruce--not the great Bruce--and John Baliol. Edward decided in favour of Baliol, who forthwith ascended the throne as vassal of England. But the Scottish lion was soon aroused by the encroachments of Edward, and Baliol was forced to disclaim allegiance to his patron. Entering into a league with France, he began to prepare for the invasion of England. (This was the beginning of the long-continued friendship between Scotland and France, which completely died out only with the death of the Stewart cause.) But Scotland was not prepared to cope with the haughty Longshanks, and it was reduced to the condition of a province of England. This could not endure long. Disunion, and not lack of national valour, had opened the way to defeat. A leader only was needed, and a leader soon arose in the person of William Wallace, the soldier and hero-patriot. Although Wallace, after having driven the English out of his country, did not succeed in establishing her independence on a lasting basis, nevertheless his achievements were not vain; he had aroused his countrymen to action, and his patriotic conduct before the English judges in Westminster Hall, could not fail to open the eyes of certain Scottish nobles who, from motives of self-interest, had accepted the foreign rule, to a realization of their dishonourable position. When accused of being a traitor to King Edward, Wallace replied: "I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject." Scarcely had death struck the torch of patriotism from the hand of Wallace, when it was caught up by a worthy successor, who had learned bravery by the side of Wallace himself. Robert Bruce was the person whom Providence had destined, not merely to defeat the enemies of his country on the field of battle, but also to unite and consolidate his kingdom and to cause it to be once more recognized as free and independent. David II., son and successor of the great liberator, died without issue, and thus the male line of the Bruce family became extinct. But the nation, being strongly attached to the memory of their deliverer, called to the throne his descendant through the female line. Bruce's daughter, Marjory, had married the Lord High Steward of Scotland, and had a son, Robert. Marjory Bruce was the "lass" to whom James V. made reference on his death-bed; and her son, who in 1370 ascended the throne as Robert II., was the first of that long, celebrated, and unfortunate line of Stewart monarchs. Brave, witty, rash, affable, obstinate, magnanimous, they exhibit a character in which all the qualities that make men beloved, and nearly all that make men great, are perversely blended with many frailties and follies. Besides, some remorseless genius would seem to have presided over their lives and to have ingeniously contrived to make their miseries greater, and their lives more pitiable, by leading them into full view of prosperity and glory before it struck them to the earth. The good Robert III. died of sorrow at the misfortune of his sons; James I., the brave, learned and wise monarch, died under the murderer's steel; James II. was killed by the bursting of a cannon; James III., thrown from his horse and wounded, was stabbed to death by an assassin; James IV., the pride and darling of the nation, fell, sword in hand, on a disastrous field of battle; James V. died of a broken heart, and that, too, like his predecessors, in the blossom of his manhood; Mary (if I be permitted to anticipate), died at the block, the victim of politico-religious utilitarianism and her cousin's jealousy; and Charles I. died at the block, the victim of a military despotism. During these centuries successive regal minorities afforded the nobles, at all times powerful and turbulent, ample opportunity of increasing their power, until it became a standing menace to the throne. James IV., besides his other good works for the welfare of his people, did much towards reducing the power of the nobles and centralizing authority in the crown. But the progress of the country received a sudden check, and the bright career of the King was brought to a mournful close, by an event that did for Scotland, on the eve of the Reformation, what the Wars of the Roses had already done for England--deprived it of its best and bravest nobles. James' rash invasion of England ended in the doleful battle of Flodden, which robbed Scotland of her king and almost of her independence. There is, however, one feature in that sad event which is pleasing to contemplate; it was the last great battle in which a united Scotland stood with unwavering fidelity around its monarch. By the time Mary Stewart saw the light, an unexpected element of disunion had been introduced into the national life. The religious revolution of the sixteenth century, commonly called the Reformation, had been spreading in the cities and towns of the kingdom. Already in England Henry VIII. had enriched the throne, and the greedy nobles had enriched themselves, from the spoils of churches and monasteries. By his breach with Rome, Henry had made himself an enemy to the Catholic powers, and it was important that he should strengthen his position by drawing Scotland out of its old alliance with France, and bringing it into friendship with himself. But this he could not do while Scotland remained Catholic. The title of "Defender of the Faith," which, by his rebellion against the Pope, Henry had forfeited, but which, strange to say, neither he nor his successors have ever relinquished, was conferred on James V. of Scotland in 1537. In 1540 Henry sent his wily envoy, Sir Ralph Sadler, to bring the refractory young James to his own way of thinking. Sadler came with his plan of temptation so skilfully arranged, that one would believe him fresh from the study of the fourth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel. First, he appealed to the vanity of the young King, representing to him that if he yielded to Henry's wishes, he would become independent of all external authority. But the device failed, and Sadler was forced to inform his master, that James continued in his persuasion that the "Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ." He next attempted to gain the Scottish King through avarice. He pointed out the wealth of the monasteries, which could be appropriated to the uses of the crown, as it had been in England. James assured him there was no need of that, for the "Kirkmen would give him all he wanted." Finally, Sadler reminded him that Henry was "stricken in years" and that by showing consideration for his uncle's wishes, James might be named his successor, and one day rule over the whole island. Yet the young northern king did not fall down and adore, but merely answered that he wished his uncle many years of life on the English throne; as for himself, he added, he was happy among his own people, and had no desire to extend his dominions. Not all the Scottish nobles followed the example of their monarch. Across the border they could see the English nobles enriching themselves from Church property, and it was not clear to them why they should not go and do likewise. Accordingly, a number of them became remarkably industrious in the cause of the new religion, their zeal for the house of God being nowise abated by the unprecedented wealth it brought to their own house. We should greatly err, however, if we thought the avarice of the nobles of itself could have made the change of religion possible. The truth is, the state of Religion in Scotland, at that time, was not flourishing, and the country offered a good field for the growth and spread of religious innovation. The long peace from external foes which the Church had enjoyed was the occasion of a relaxation of discipline, and of a widespread indifference to the full observance of religious duties. The custom of appointing lay abbots, called Commendatory Abbots, to the charge of the temporalities of monasteries, was another evil. This office was frequently controlled by powerful lords, who had their own sons appointed thereto, not on account of their virtue or their learning, but just because they were scions of noble houses who had to be provided for. But what made the way smoothest for the "Reformers" was the ignorance of the people in matters of Christian doctrine. The wars in which the country had been for centuries engaged, had left little or no time for the cultivation of the arts of peace, except within the monasteries. Had the people been properly instructed in their religion, the work of the "Reformers" would have made but little headway in Scotland. A Reformation in the true sense--a recalling of the people, high and low, to the practice of their religious duties--was necessary; new creeds were not necessary. But the true Reformation began too late; in the meantime there came a revolution in which the religious fabric of centuries was overthrown, and a new profession of faith, gotten up in a few days by a committee of divines, was adopted by Act of Parliament. The monasteries and churches, which vied in point of richness and architectural beauty with the best on the Continent, were plundered and demolished. Voluminous libraries, containing, together with the works of the Ancients and the writings of the Church Fathers, precious manuscript histories of Scottish institutions, were made the fuel of bonfires; and the treasures of sculpture and painting, which had been accumulating for centuries, and in which men's religious hopes and fears were depicted by the Master artists of Medieval times, were hurled from their pedestals or consigned to the flames. While the frenzy lasted, the national loss was not considered. But cool heads soon began to deplore the wanton destruction which robbed the country of so many monuments, the history of which was interwoven with the history of Scottish patriots and heroic achievements. And in truth what true Scotsman, whatever his religious tenets, but deplores the demolition of such venerable piles as Melrose Abbey, Kelso, Scone? or who but would feel the noblest emotions of his nature awakened could he now approach the High Altar of Cambuskenneth's shrine, before which, when Scotland lay prostrate at the feet of the conqueror, the brave associates of Bruce knelt and vowed the deliverance of their country? But we must return to Mary. CHAPTER II. TROUBLES SURROUNDING HER CHILDHOOD. On the death of James V., the Earl of Arran, head of the powerful house of Hamilton, became Governor of Scotland. Arran was weak and unreliable, and favourably affected, both in religion and politics, toward the English party. On the other hand, Cardinal David Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrews, stood forth as the representative of Scottish independence and the French alliance; and through his influence the progress of negotiations for the English alliance was checked. But, for reasons which I need not delay to explain, an agreement of marriage between Mary and Edward was afterwards signed. So strongly, however, were the masses of the people opposed to any measure that might bring Scotland under the power of the "auld enemy," and so enraged were they at certain humiliating conditions attached to the marriage contract, that the treaty was broken up within a fortnight after it had been signed. "I assure you," said a Scotsman to the English envoy, "that our nation, being a stout nation, will never agree to have an Englishman King of Scotland; and though the whole nobility of the realm should consent to it, yet the common people, and the stones of the streets would rise and rebel against it." Henry VIII., whose patience was not his predominant virtue, was enraged at this opposition to his will, and hastened troops into Scotland, both by land and sea, with instructions so savagely cruel, that we could hardly believe them to have been issued did we not see them realized in the subsequent conduct of the soldiery. On the 3rd of May, 1544, an English fleet suddenly appeared off Leith, which, in conjunction with a land army, proceeded to carry out the instructions of their royal master, namely, "To put all to fire and sword, to burn Edinburgh town, and to raze and deface it when you have sacked it and gotten what you can out of it, as that it may remain for ever a perpetual memory of the vengeance of God lighted upon it for their falsehood and disloyalty." "Do what you can," the instructions continue, "out of hand and without long tarrying, to beat down and overthrow the Castle, sack Holyrood House and as many towns and villages about Edinburgh as you conveniently can. Sack Leith and burn and subvert it and all the rest, putting man, woman and child to fire and sword, without exception, when any resistance shall be made against you. And this done, pass over to Fifeland and extend like extremities and destructions to all towns and villages whereunto ye may reach conveniently; not forgetting amongst all the rest to spoil and turn upside down the Cardinal's town of St. Andrews, as the upper stone may be the nether, and not one stick stand by another; sparing no creature alive within the same, especially such as either in friendship or blood be allied to the Cardinal." Another army sent into Scotland in September of the same year, converted the southern portion of the country almost into a waste, no scruple being made of burning mothers and children in their homes. Between the 8th and the 23rd of September, the army destroyed, among other things, seven monasteries, sixteen castles, five market towns, two hundred and forty-three villages, thirteen mills and three hospitals. These barbarities had the effect of uniting the two parties in Scotland and of retarding the very movement that Henry had hoped they should accelerate. The greatest obstacle to the progress of Henry's designs on Scotland was still Cardinal Beaton. Beaton was not only a distinguished prelate, but also a statesman of European reputation. Henry was anxious to get him out of the way; but negotiations for his murder, though entered into on various occasions, fell through, because the interested parties could not agree on the price of the Cardinal's blood. However, the work was accomplished later; on the 29th of May, 1546, a band of conspirators entered the Castle of St. Andrews, murdered the Cardinal and, having dressed his corpse in priestly vestments, suspended it from the Castle wall. Henry was shortly afterwards called to his reward, but the war against Scotland was carried on by Somerset, the Protector, and in September, 1547, Scottish independence being seriously threatened, after the disastrous battle of Pankie, the young queen was quickly removed from Sterling and hurried away to the Priory on Inchmahone, in the lake of Menteith, in Perthshire. Here, unconscious of the fierce conflicts of which she was the occasion, Mary passed her days in childish sports, in company with her four playmates, who were destined to become her maids of honor--Mary Beaton, Mary Seton, Mary Fleming and Mary Livingston. Some decisive step with regard to the young queen had soon to be taken. The Estates convened and decided to give her in marriage to the Dauphin, and to send her to France to be educated. Accordingly, on the 7th of August, 1548, Mary, being then scarcely six years old, embarked at Dunbarton, and six days later landed at Roscoff, near Brest. Surrounded by every mark of respect corresponding to her dignity, she was conducted to the Court of Henry II., and was henceforward treated with the distinction due to a crowned queen (for the coronation ceremony had been performed in Scotland), and the betrothed of the heir to the French throne. CHAPTER III. THE YOUNG QUEEN OF SCOTS IN FRANCE. Those who have been accustomed to hearing the French court of that time spoken of as dissolute and vicious, and who have furthermore taken for granted that Mary's early life was shaped by the unsavoury habits of the courtiers, and that the crimes of which she was afterwards accused were only the natural outgrowth of her early training, will do well to remember that her education was not intrusted to the French court or courtiers. Antoinette de Bourbon, maternal grandmother of the young queen, a lady eminent throughout France for her virtues, was the person in whose hands Mary of Lorraine had placed the religious education of her child. The brave Duke of Guise (who had won Calais from the English) and his brother the Cardinal, were also particularly interested in the welfare of their little niece. To these Mary, from the beginning, became warmly attached, and their landless and uninterrupted solicitude for her well-being, sealed that reciprocal love of uncles and niece which lasted until death. Mary was already Queen of Scotland and betrothed of the future King of France, and would probably succeed to the throne of England; nothing, therefore, was overlooked that would help to qualify her for the high position to which she was destined. Her education did not stop with the lighter accomplishments suited to her sex and station; the deeper studies of literature, ancient and modern; history, Sacred Scripture, the languages and the fine arts, were assiduously attended to. An interesting document in the form of a Latin exercise book which she used when about twelve years of age, is preserved in the National Library in Paris. It contains sixty-four themes, written in clear characters, which, however, vary in appearance according to the quality of the pen and ink she happened to have at hand. She writes on subjects taken from Plato, Cicero and other classical authors; she cites different works of Erasmus; she discusses the history of certain learned women of antiquity; she speaks of the profit to be derived from the study of Holy Scripture if approached with a pure heart; and among other things she has a theme on Purgatory, thrown into the form of an epistle addressed to Calvin. Mary's physical, mental and moral development were studiously watched, and carefully reported to her mother in Scotland. When she had just completed her eleventh year, the Cardinal of Guise, in a letter to her mother, writes of her as follows: "Your daughter has grown much taller and she daily improves in goodness and virtue, in beauty and intelligence. She could not possibly make greater progress than she does in all that is excellent and of good reputation. Never have I seen her equal in this realm, either among high or low.... You may be assured that in her you have a daughter who will be the greatest of comforts to you." Further on the Cardinal drops a remark which shows that Mary had already developed a trait of character that was conspicuous throughout the remainder of her life. "In the settlement of your daughter's establishment, it is my opinion that there should not be anything that is either superfluous or mean, for meanness is the thing which, of all others, she hates most in the world." In a letter written to her mother on the occasion of her first communion, Mary uttered a prayer which we who know--what she could not then know--the trials that awaited her, cannot read without being touched by the sad contrast between her first bright hope and the subsequent gloom that settled over her life. "I have come," she said, "to Meudon to Madame my grandmother, in order to keep the feast of Easter, because she and my uncle--Monsieur the Cardinal--wish that I should take the Sacrament. I pray to God very humbly to give me grace that I may make a good beginning." On Sunday, the 4th of April, 1558, the fair Scottish queen, who was now in her sixteenth year, was married to the young Dauphin, in the Cathedral of Notre Dame. All Paris was astir in its festive garments. Scotland and France vied in adding to the splendour of the feast; the choicest music swelled along the high arches of the grand old cathedral; the streets of the gay capital re-echoed with the popular demonstrations; nor need we doubt that the martial strains of the Highland pipes mingled with the livelier tones of the French fife and drum. According to a chronicler of the event, it was the universal opinion of the multitude that, "if Scotland be a possession of value, she who is queen of that realm is far more precious, for if she had neither crown nor sceptre, her single person, in her divine beauty, would be worth a kingdom." In the following November, Mary Tudor, Queen of England, died, and Mary Stewart, at least in the opinion of the Catholics, who did not acknowledge the legitimacy of Elizabeth, daughter of Ann Boleyn, became, by right, Queen of England. Mary's title to the crown of England came through her paternal grandmother, the Princess Margaret, eldest sister of Henry VIII. A few months later, the death of the French King brought the Dauphin to the throne, and Mary became Queen of France. A little more than a year afterwards, she was left a widow of eighteen. She had all along been, and still was, the pride and admiration of France; yet she could truly say, "Now, I'm in the world alone." Her father had died when she was an infant; her father-in-law, who was strongly attached to her, had been cut off by a sudden death; her husband died shortly after; and a few months later, the news of her mother's death, under distressing circumstances, reached her. No wonder she turned her thoughts away from royal splendour and gave herself up to meditation on the hollowness of worldly greatness. No wonder it took all the influence of her friends to persuade her from entering the Convent at Rheims and passing the remainder of her days under the habit of an humble nun. But this was not permitted her; and the question of her return to Scotland began to be discussed. The Estates of Scotland convened to consider the conditions on which they would permit the return of their Sovereign. The men who led this movement had shortly before been in open rebellion, and, with the assistance of Elizabeth of England, had carried on war against the Queen-Regent, Mary of Lorraine. They had furthermore concluded a treaty with Elizabeth that was prejudicial to Mary's right of succession to the English throne; and had, by Act of Parliament, proscribed the Catholic religion in Scotland. The articles of the treaty and the acts against Catholic worship had been presented to Mary for ratification; but she had declined to sanction them, the question being weighty and she being without counsel of her nobles; more especially, however, because these were not the work of the Scottish nation, but of a faction in league with Queen Elizabeth. Indeed, the English Ambassador to Paris, Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, had repeatedly urged Mary to ratify the treaty of Edinburgh. It was after an interview with her on this subject that this shrewd and observant agent of Elizabeth and Cecil penned for the information of the English court, the following description of the young widow, which is valuable as the testimony of an enemy who knew her well:-- "During her husband's life no great account was made of her, for that being under bond of marriage and subjection to him (who carried the burden and care of all her matters), there was offered no great occasion to know what was in her. But since her husband's death, she hath shewed (and so continueth) that she is of great wisdom for her years, and of equal modesty, and also of great judgment in the wise handling of herself and her matters; which, increasing with her years, cannot but turn greatly to her commendation, reputation, honour and great benefit to herself and her country.... Assuredly she carries herself so honourably and discreetly that one cannot but fear her progress." Mary's "modesty and honour," therefore, were already the cause of alarm to her English foes. What wonder, then, if they strove to dispoil her of both, or that failing, endeavoured to convince her subject that she had cast them both from her? Two delegates were sent from Scotland to negotiate with their Queen concerning her return. One represented the Congregation,[#] or what may be called the Revolutionary party--and this was Mary's own half-brother, Lord James Stewart, later known as the Earl of Moray; the other, John Leslie, afterwards Bishop of Ross and the life-long friend of Mary, represented what may be called the old loyal party. The suspicions entertained by the loyal party as to the honesty of Lord James' intentions are revealed by the fact that Leslie advised Mary to have him arrested and detained in France, until she should be firmly seated on the throne. If she did not care to do this, Leslie recommended that, instead of going direct to Edinburgh, which was the stronghold of the Congregation, she should land at Aberdeen, where the Earl of Huntly, with twenty thousand of her loyal subjects, was prepared to welcome her and conduct her in triumph to Edinburgh. And when we consider the influence of the powerful Gordon, who even then was "Cock of the North," it seems probable that the Congregation, without the aid of Elizabeth, could have raised no force sufficient to oppose him. [#] Since December, 1557, when a certain number of Scottish nobles, at the instance of Knox, solemnly pledged themselves to support the new religion and "to forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan,"--by which they meant the Catholic Church,--the Protestants in Scotland had been known as the Congregation. But Mary--for what reason we are not informed, but probably from her aversion to strife and bloodshed--declined the invitation of the Catholic Earl, and decided to return to Scotland under the patronage of neither the circumcised "Saints" of the Congregation, nor the uncircumcised Philistines of the Gordon country, but as a messenger of peace who would unite all parties in the bonds of mutual forbearance, and would seek her support in the undivided loyalty of the realm. So far she had won all hearts, and had met no man but would have thought it a privilege to be permitted to devote his life to her service. May we not suspect that she hoped her personal influence, which had hitherto known victory only, would soften the animosity of rebel lords and religious fanatics? At any rate she prepared to depart for Scotland. "All the bravest and noblest gentlemen of France assembled themselves around the fairest of Queens and women," to give her a last proof of their love and respect. Among the Scottish nobles who formed part of her cortege on her way to Calais, was he who, a few years later, became the evil genius of her life--the brave and reckless Earl of Bothwell. In the following soliloquy, the unfortunate Earl, outlawed and pining away in a Danish prison, has been made to express his impressions of the young widow when he first knew her in France:--
[#] "Bothwell," by William Edmondstoune Aytoun. On the 15th of August, 1561, having bid farewell to her uncles, the Cardinal and the Duke of Guise, to her other relatives and the large number of friends and admirers who accompanied her to the water's edge, she embarked at Calais and turned with a heavy heart to her new home, where her mother, only a few months before, had been denied a grave; where the death of her husband had been made the subject of rude jibes, and where she herself had been denounced by the leader of the new religion, as another Jezebel. France may be said in the meantime to have been in mourning; and the words of the poet Ronsard, poetry though they be, express a feeling that was common to the nation. "Ho! Scotland," he writes, "I would that thou mightest wander like Delos on the face of the sea, or sink to its profoundest depths, so that the sails of thy bright queen, vainly striving to seek her realm, might suddenly turn and bear her back to her fair Duchy of Tourraine." Six days after her departure, having evaded, under cover of a dense fog, the English cruisers sent out to intercept her, she landed at Leith, and proceeded to the Royal Palace of Holyrood at Edinburgh. CHAPTER IV. FACING TROUBLES IN SCOTLAND. The news of the unexpected arrival of the young Queen, who had come unattended by armed force, and had committed herself to the chivalry of the nation, awakened a degree of enthusiasm even in the stern "professors" of the Congregation. Feelings of loyalty to a long line of monarchs die hard in the human breast, and especially was this so in those days when the monarch, in the estimation of his people, stood for something more than the chairman of a national committee; and the mass of the Scottish people, whether adherents of the old religion, or professors of the new, saw in the fair Queen who had come amongst them the representative of a line of brave Sovereigns, around whom their forefathers had fought and died for national independence, and whose deeds of bravery were fresh in Scottish song and tradition, indeed, the influence which Mary wielded over the people was greater than could well be expected. Shortly after her arrival, a number of the most zealous nobles of the Congregation came to Edinburgh to help Knox banish the Mass from her household. But, after a few visits to Holyrood, their fierce fervour disappeared. "I have been here now for five days," remarked one of them to a friend, "and at the first I heard every man say, 'Let us hang the priest,' but after that they had been twice or thrice in the Abbey, all that fervency passed. I think there be some enchantment whereby men are bewitched." And in truth it can be said that, with scarcely an exception, no one ever came directly under the influence of Mary Stewart without being, in some degree, impressed in her favour. But in spite of the favourable signs that were manifested on her arrival, no grave observer could contemplate her environment and fail to foresee discord, rebellion and her almost inevitable overthrow. There were the fierce nobles who, a few months before, had been in arms against her mother, and who were enjoying the property of the Church, which it was now their interest to combat. There were the stern "Professors" of the Congregation, of which Knox was the life and force, who considered her an idolatress, and, consequently--according to the Jewish criminal code, which they held in special esteem--deserving of death. There was her half-brother, Lord James, gruff, reticent and ambitious, watching for a turn of affairs that might bring him to the throne; and there, too, was Elizabeth, with her able and unscrupulous Secretary, Cecil, who had already fomented and supported rebellion in Scotland, and even now had emissaries at work for the overthrow of the young northern Queen. Worst, perhaps of all, Mary had very little counsel on which she could rely. Allowing for poetical exaggeration, a good deal of truth is contained in the words of the Jacobite bard:--
Mary was not long in Scotland before her courage was put to the test. It had been stipulated by Lord James that she should be free to have Mass in her own house. It would seem, however, that the zealots of the Congregation had little expected that in face of their strong opposition to her religion, the young Queen would venture to practice it on her return. If so, they miscalculated the extent to which she had inherited the high spirit and unflinching courage of her bravest ancestors. The first Sunday after her arrival, she ordered Mass to be celebrated in the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood. A party of the Congregation, headed by Patrick, Lord Lindsay, rushed into the apartment and attacked the Chaplain. The Queen immediately published a proclamation to the effect that she did not intend to interfere with the form of religion she had found established in Scotland, and that she commanded her subjects not to molest any of her servants or household. Shortly afterwards she made a tour of the country, and on her return to Edinburgh, learned that the Provost and his brethren in office had, in the meantime, issued a proclamation commanding all Papists, under penalty of death for the third offence, to depart from the town. She caused the bailies who were responsible for this act to be removed from office, and issued a counter-proclamation, permitting "All good and faithful subjects to repair to, or leave Edinburgh, according to their pleasure or convenience." Knox was horrified at the Queen's action, and immediately predicted a sudden plague. But what annoyed him most was, that certain Protestant lords, who had professed strong opposition to the Mass, were now inclined to tolerate it in the Queen's chapel. He took care, in his weekly sermons, to make known his opinion of these "politick heads" and to give the people timely warning of the chastisement with which God would certainly visit the nation for permitting idolatry. The young Queen, who was still in her teens, must have keenly felt the reproaches that were being cast on herself and her religion, and, although she succeeded in showing herself cheerful in company, we may be sure her heart was sad and that memory often carried her back to earlier days, in which she experienced nothing but gentle treatment and the respectful homage of a nation of brave men, ready to draw the sword in her defence. However, it would be unjust to the Scottish people to think that the treatment which Mary received in Edinburgh was a correct index to the feeling of the country at large. The hearts of the Scottish people were with their Queen, and remained with her unto the end. Her fiercest enemies were found in the extreme religious party led by Knox. An amicable understanding with these was impossible. The Protestant nobles--except those who were zealous followers of Knox--did not, as far as I can see, care much what religious devotions the Queen practised, so long as she took no steps towards restoring the old religion. The fact that many of them had enriched themselves from church property readily explains their opposition to every movement in that direction. But the turbulent section of the nobles and the Congregation controlled by Knox, were not the people of Scotland. This is a fact it would be well to note, for, it seems to me, many people fall into the error that the friends and the enemies of Mary in Scotland were divided on purely religious lines. It is true, the storm in which she was shipwrecked, was mainly a religious one; yet all the Protestants were by no means opposed to her. Many of her best friends, who stood by her in every peril, and supported her cause until the last hope of her restoration was dead, were Protestant nobles. Early in Mary's reign there appears to have been some discontent among certain Catholic nobles, who seemed disposed to attempt the restoration of the old faith by force of arms. The Earl of Huntly said that, if the Queen would "sanction him in it, he could set up the Mass again in the three countries." She was as zealous in the cause of religion, and willing to suffer as much for it as Huntly; but the prospect of effecting any permanent good by such means, was extremely poor. If the struggle would be left to Scotland itself, Huntly's project would be more deserving of consideration. But Queen Elizabeth would never, while she could prevent it, allow her adversaries to gain advantages in Scotland; and in the event of the Scottish Catholics attempting to gain freedom of worship for themselves her gold and her soldiers would soon flow over the border, as they did in the regency of Mary of Lorraine. But apart from this, Mary was opposed to civil strife. She had come to the country in a peaceful manner, hoping, by a peaceful policy, to conciliate the minds of her people and finally to obtain an alleviation of the ills under which her Catholic subjects were suffering. But the difficulties with which she had to contend were not fully understood by her relations in France, nor, at the outset, even by the Pope; and it is not improbable that for a while they feared she was not so industrious as she should be in promoting the interests of her religion. And to this day a number of her Protestant biographers--some of them enthusiastic vindicators of her honour--speak of her leanings towards Protestantism, either from policy or from conviction. Some say that early in her reign she, through policy, openly favoured the Protestant cause, and as proof of her favour overthrew--which she undoubtedly did--the powerful house of Gordon, head of which was the Catholic Earl of Huntly. Others think if the proper means had been employed, she would have become a Protestant from conviction, and, in support of their opinion, they adduce her readiness to read Protestant controversial works, and that state of religious doubt which, they say, she manifested in a certain conversation with Knox. A distinguished Scottish biographer of Mary's, the late Sir John Skelton, has thought that the uncharitable treatment she received from Knox was the principal cause why she remained a Catholic. "Knox," he writes, "was the foremost of the Reformers; yet Mary had found that Knox was narrow-minded, superstitious, and fiercely intolerant,--so narrow-minded, intolerant and superstitious that he had no difficulty in believing that the orderly course of nature was interrupted because the Queen dined on wild fowl and danced till midnight. If this was Protestantism, she would have none of it. Nor can we blame her much. The eccleciastical dictator at Edinburgh was as violent and irrational (it might well appear to her) as the ecclesiastical dictator at Rome. Was it worth her while to exchange the infallible Pope of the Vatican for the infallible Pope of the High Street?"[#] (Maitland of Lethington, Vol. II., Chap. I.) |
|