Produced by Al Haines.
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS
IN
HISTORY
BY
REV. C. A. CAMPBELL, D.D., Ph. D.
MONTREAL:
D. & J. SADLIER & CO.
1903
Copyright, 1903, by
JAMES A. SADLIER.
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.
HALIFAX, N.S.,
February 8th, 1902.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER
I.--The Scotland of Mary's birth
II.--Troubles surrounding her childhood
III.--The Young Queen of Scots in France
IV.--Facing troubles in Scotland
V.--The Queen's marriage and fresh Troubles
VI.--The Tragedy of "Kirk O'Field" and its sequel
VII.--Captivity--Escape--Flight
VIII.--In the hands of Elizabeth
IX.--The Queen of Scots detained a prisoner
X.--Elizabeth unmoved by her captive's appeals
XI.--The beginning of the end
XII.--The evidence against the Queen of Scots
XIII.--Extracts from her addresses to the Commissioners
XIV.--The sentence of death
XV.--An interval of suspense
XVI.--The end
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.