Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

PREDESTINED DOOM OF MARY.

ΤΟΙ

were to break the thunders of a ruining world; her weapons were but a fair face, and a subtle tongue, and an indomitable courage. No conduct could have saved Mary from some "strange tragedy," but the passions that slept within her were to add dishonour to her predestined fall. The details of the voyage are dim as the sea-mist which, earlier or later, fell on Mary's galleons, the protection of heaven, said her friends; the warning of an angry God, said Knox. On August 19 she arrived at Leith, accompanied by Brantôme, d'Elbœuf, d'Aumale, and the Grand Prior: Mr Froude adds, “a passionate Châtelar sighing at her feet." He says that the English fleet was on her track, and "if the admiral" (what admiral?) had sunk her ship, Elizabeth "would have found it afterwards well done.' M. Philippson makes it clear that, by Cecil's orders of August 5 and 8, Mary was to be detained if she touched at an English port.82 But, on the whole, and though a vessel of the cortége was detained, it seems that no effort was made to stop the queen. That she did not write the pretty lines, "Adieu, plaisant pays de France," but that they were the mystification of a journalist, Meusnier de Querlon, 1765, is averred by that destroyer of tradition, M. Edouard Fournier,83

"81

NOTES TO CHAPTER IV.

1 Hill Burton, iii. 377; Fœdera, vol. xv., May 12, 1560. M. Philippson, in his 'Marie Stuart,' equally condemns the refusal of Mary to acknowledge Elizabeth. 2 Keith, i. 294. 3 Philippson, i. 190.

4 Hume Brown, Knox, ii. 87, note; Teulet, i. 606, 607.

5 Tytler, vi. 195; vi. 227 (1837).

7 Keith, i. 303.

6 Keith, i. 306.

8 Keith, i. 317.

9 Act. Parl., ii. 15.

10 Hume Brown, Knox, ii. 86; Calendar, i. 455, 456; Tytler, vi. 176; vi. 206

[blocks in formation]

16 For. Cal. Eliz., iii. 152 note.

18 Randolph, August 10. Calendar, i. 458.

19 September 7. Calendar, i. 477, 478.

21 Knox, ii. 128. Spottiswoode, Willock, Douglas, and Row were the other

authors.

22 Mitchell, The Scottish Reformation, 100-102.

23 Maitland to Cecil, August 18. Calendar, i. 465.

24 Act. Parl., ii. 534, 535.

26 For. Cal. Eliz., iv. 387.

28 Keith, iii. 4-7, and iii. 128, note.

25 Lesley, p. 537.

27 Keith, i. 323-325.

[blocks in formation]

29 Keith, iii. 4-12. Maitland to Cecil, September 6, For. Cal. Eliz., iii. 278. 30 For. Cal. Eliz., iii. 259. This is how I understand Randolph.

31 Knox, vi. 13.

33 Knox, iv. 179, 182.

35 Narratives of Scottish

37 Mitchell, p. 155.

39 Knox, ii. 128.

32 Mitchell, The Scottish Reformation, p. 127 and note.

[blocks in formation]

38 Latimer's Sermon of the Plough, Froude, iv. 355.
40 Knox, ii. 130.
41 Knox, ii. 233.

42 Hume Brown, Knox, ii. 115.

43 Hume Brown, Life of Knox, ii. 116, 117.

4 Hume Brown, Life of Knox, ii. 121, note.

45 Privy Council Register, i. 246, 247.

46 Forbes Keith, Narratives of Scottish Catholics, 63-79.

47 Keith, iii. 424, 425.

49 Laing's Knox, vi. 153.

48 Leslie, pp. 538-540.

Winzet's works are most easily accessible in the Appendix to Keith, vol. iii.: they also exist in the Maitland Club book of 1835, and in an edition by the Scottish Text Society.

50 Life of Knox, ii. 178, note 2.

51 On the affair, see Froude, vi. 414-433.

52 See Mr Gairdner, Historical Review, i. 235 et seq. 53 Teulet, i. 623-629.

5 September 18, 1560.

55 Teulet, i. 635; Throckmorton's account of the negotiations, For. Cal. Eliz.,

iii. 246.

56 Froude, vi. 336.

58 For. Cal. Eliz., iii. 410.

60 For. Cal. Eliz., iii. 486.

57 Teulet, i. 638, 639.
59 ii. 134.

61 Knox, ii. 137.

62 For. Cal. Eliz., iii. 531-534; Teulet, ii. 160. January 23-De l'Isle's Instructions. See Mary's Lettres Patentes of January. She especially wanted advice as to finance and the appointment of a treasurer. Her envoys were "small barons"- Preston of Craigmillar, Ogilvy of Findlater, Lumsden of Blanern, and Lesley of Auchtermuchty.

63 For. Cal. Eliz., iii. 415, 416.

65 Tytler, vi. 221; vi. 257 (1837).

66 For. Cal. Eliz., iv. 87.

68 For. Cal. Eliz., iv. 158.

70 Knox, ii. 167.

72 For. Cal. Eliz., iv. 187, note.

Labanoff, i. 80-88.

64 Lesley, p. 532.

Philippson, Marie Stuart, i. 297-299.
67 For. Cal. Eliz., iv. 76.

69 Knox, ii. 161-163, note 2.
71 For. Cal. Eliz., iv. 187.

73 For. Cal. Eliz., iv. 199.

74 "King Henry" is an error of the summary of Throckmorton's letter in the

Calendar. See Hay Fleming, p. 246.

75 Calendar, i. 536.

77 For. Cal. Eliz., iv. 250.

79 Tytler, vi. 400, 401.

76 Calendar, i. 543; Philippson, i. 318.

78 Tytler, vi. 230, note 2; vi. 269 (1837).

80 Languet, July 13, 1561. Schiern's Bothwell, p. 24, note.

81 Froude, vi. 511.

82 Hist. MSS. Commission, xii.; Appendix iv., i. 73. Philippson, i. 337.

83 L'Esprit dans l'Histoire, pp. 181-187; Schiern, Bothwell, p. 411; Hay Fleming, pp. 250-252.

THE LORD JAMES.

Tytler accuses Lord James of having "betrayed" to Throckmorton, in Paris, what was said by Mary to himself. Dr Hay Fleming ('Mary, Queen of Scots,' p. 235) combats this view, which is also that of M. Philippson. Lord James, though he went "secretly" to Throckmorton, told Mary that he had paid the

NOTES.

103 visit (Philippson, iii. 438). But did he tell Mary what passed between him and Throckmorton? Throckmorton's letter is of April 29 ('For. Cal. Eliz.,' iv. 84). Whatever Lord James did or did not say to Throckmorton, according to M. Philippson, he lied. Lord James said that Mary "would not suffer him to accom. pany her to Nancy, in Lorraine, whereby he gathers that there is something there in hand that she would be loath he should be privy to." But Keith (iii. 210) prints, in English and French, a letter of Mary's to Throckmorton of April 22, 1562, which she dates from Nancy, where she says that Lord James is "with her," il y est venue. Why did Mary say he was with her, if he was not? Why, if he was with her at Nancy, did Lord James deny the fact to Throckmorton, and throw suspicion on his sister? It is on questions like this that we expect light from the minute researches of Dr Hay Fleming. "To make Tytler's charges good," he says (he does not mention Philippson's charges), "one of two things must be established - either that Mary had revealed her secret intentions to her brother, or that he believed she had. Tytler and Hosack prove neither." What do facts prove, as far as facts can be obtained from what Throckmorton said that Lord James said? He "declared all that passed between himself and Mary. What passed?

1. Mary would not let him go to Nancy with her. Mary tells Throckmorton that he did go to her to Nancy, and was with her as she was writing.

2. That she would not ratify the treaty of June 6 till she was in Scotland, and had the advice of her Estates.

So Mary herself later told Elizabeth.

3. That she desired to dissolve the league between England and the Scots. Can any one deny that this was her "secret intention," and public intention, for that matter?

4. Lord James gave the gossip of Guise's Master of the Horse, to the effect that Mary had said that she would never marry Arran.

A brother reports, to an English ambassador, a "horse-master's" talk about his

own sister!

5. That she will try to get the consent of the Estates to her marriage with a foreign prince.

Either Mary said so, truly or falsely, or Lord James, falsely or truly, said that she did.

6. She cares as little for the friendship of France as of England, and has ordered that the Estates shall not meet, or any matter of importance be settled, till her return.

This contradicts Buchanan's tale, that Lord James brought a commission for the sitting of Parliament. As to the friendship of France, the question is not, Did Mary express her "secret intentions"? but, Did Lord James tell Throckmorton all that he could gather from her about them? He could do no more, and he did that, or he fabled.

7. That she meant to return by sea.

Nobody can be sure what she then intended; but that was what she did.

8. That she pays little attention to the suit of the King of Denmark.

9. Murray revealed the talk of Mary and Cardinal Guise about Elizabeth's own religion, crucifix, and candles.

Enfin, Lord James either told all that he could tell about Mary's intentions, or he concealed or falsified them. If Lord James did not believe that what he revealed were Mary's "secret intentions " he ought to have warned Throckmorton to that effect. Did he?

CHAPTER V.

MARY IN SCOTLAND.

1561-1563.

"1

THE history of Scotland after Mary's landing is so rich in political events, and in social and personal interest, that a concise treatment must leave much untouched. Before leaving France, Mary had defined her attitude towards theology. "For my part," she had told Throckmorton, "you may perceive that I am none of these that will change my religion every year; and . . . I mean to constrain none of my subjects, but would wish that they were all as I am, and I trust they should have no support to constrain me." In this provisional attitude she remained. Her desire, doubtless, was to make Scotland a stepping stone to higher things. She might marry Don Carlos, she might make good her claim to the English throne, she might recover both countries for the Church. Meanwhile if she could secure freedom of conscience for herself, and attend her mass in private, that was the minimum to which she had a human right, and that was the fine edge of the wedge. She might, and she did, win her lords to insist on her recognition as heiress of the English crown, failing Elizabeth and her issue. Her lords were thus no longer mere adherents of Elizabeth. For a beginning this was enough.

Mary's arrival was darkened by the morose climate, and by preparations incomplete, because she was unexpected. "Was never seen a more dolorous face of the heaven. . . . That forewarning God gave unto us," says Knox. The queen remained in Leith till some rooms were made ready in Holyrood. On her way thither the artisans met her. They were under excommunication for a May-day riot and celebration of Robin Hood. "Because she was sufficiently instructed that all they did was done in despite

KNOX MEETS MARY.

105

of religion, they were easily pardoned."2 Religion had little to do with Robin Hood. He and his merry men, and May revels, had been put down before the Reformation, probably because it was usual to ask for money, perhaps with violence. If the craftsmen deliberately acted "in despite of religion," the new creed had not sunk very deep, and we see many symptoms that the Edinburgh populace was not steadily Protestant.

All night bonfires blazed, and there was music, probably both. sacred and secular. All went well, the lords flocking to salute the queen, till Sunday (Knox is too consistent to say "Sabbath"), August 24. Preparations were made for the mass in the chapel royal attached to the palace, not in the Abbey Church, now a picturesque and dreary ruin. For this private mass Lord James had stipulated. The Master of Lindsay, with the fanatics of Fife, bawled against the "idol," crying "the idolatrous priest should die the death," contrary even to the penal statutes. Lord James, who never lacked courage, held the chapel door, and, after service, his brothers, Robert and John, conveyed the priest to his chambers, "and so the godly departed with great grief of heart," thirsting for clerical blood. On the following day the Privy Council decreed that none should molest her servants or French companions. Mary announced her hope to "take a final order," as to religion, by advice of the Estates. Arran publicly protested that idolaters must be put to death, and he retired from Court, but the other lords fell under "some enchantment whereby men are bewitched." 4 Next Sunday Knox, of course, denounced the mass from the pulpit. One mass was more terrible to him than an invading army of 10,000 men. Mary sent for Knox, probably expecting her enchantments to act.

now.

But, though fond of a pretty young face, Knox was of adamant Mr Carlyle says "he is never in the least ill-tempered with her Majesty," but Mr Carlyle's ideas of temper were peculiar. Knox reports his own remarks in several hundred lines; Mary's part in the drama has but thirty lines. Mary objected that Knox raised rebellion against her mother. She alluded to his tract, 'The Monstrous Regiment of Women.' She said that he had caused slaughter in England, and was reported to be a necromancer. Mary appears, from a later charge against Ruthven, to have been a believer in black magic. She asked if he admitted her "just authority." He then lectured on the Republic of Plato, and said that, if the country found no harm in feminine

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »