requests to the English Government for assistance. They had long
been in communication with the leading men in England, but something
effective was urgently needed; and they therefore sent William Maitland
of Lethington to London, with instructions to explain their condition
to Queen Elizabeth and her Council. Long before this time Knox
himself had been in constant communication with the chief ministers
of Elizabeth, and had very earnestly urged upon them the wisdom of
rendering support to the Protestant party in Scotland, in order to
enable them to overcome the schemes of the Roman Catholic powers.¹
The negotiations with the English Government proceeded favourably,
notwithstanding the natural reluctance of Elizabeth to lend assistance
to rebellious subjects. The chief men of England were well aware of the
relative position and state of parties in Europe at this momentous and
critical period, and hence they were extremely anxious and determined
to come to an understanding with the Protestants in Scotland. Knox
exerted himself to the utmost to secure their aid, and Lethington had
an eloquent and diplomatic tongue. On the 23rd of January the English
fleet appeared off the coast of Fife, and rendered effective aid to
the Congregation. After much diplomatic talk the treaty of Berwick was
concluded on the 27th of February, 1560, between the English Government
and the Lords of the Congregation; its avowed purpose was to expel the
French from Scotland. This was as much calculated to secure the safety
of England itself as the liberties of the former kingdom.²
¹ Knox, Volume VI., pages 15‒21, 28‒♦29, 31‒32, 35‒36, 40‒43,
35‒49, 63, 63‒71, 74, ♠79, 81, 89, 91, 92, 98, 101, 189;
Sadler’s _State Papers_, Volume I., pages 601, 684.
♦ “28” replaced with “29”
♠ “69” replaced with “79”
² Fœdera, Volume XV., page 569; Calderwood’s _History_, Volume
I., pages 574‒578; Knox, Volume II., pages 13, 38‒45.
An English army, six thousand strong, entered Scotland in the end of
March 1560, and they were soon joined by the Scots who adhered to the
Lords of the Congregation. The united forces proceeded to besiege Leith,
and skirmishing ensued between them and the French. The French had made
their defences very strong, and the attacks of the allied forces were
repeatedly driven back with great loss. The Frenchmen exhibited more
skill than the besiegers; months passed, and still little progress
was made towards the reduction of Leith. But the current of events was
working changes in other quarters, and the critical condition of France
itself soon began to tell upon the course of affairs in Scotland.
Negotiations were commenced to bring the war to an end, but the
circumstances being of a peculiar character, the preliminaries required
much discussion and deliberation.¹
¹ Hayne’s _State Papers_, Volume I., pages 272‒273; Buchanan,
Book XVI., Chapters 55, 57, 58; Knox, Volume II., pages
66‒72.
The negotiations resulted in the conclusion of the treaty of Edinburgh
on the 6th of July, 1560. This treaty dealt with a variety of matters
touching France and England, some of which were never ratified. The
articles more immediately affecting the cause of the Congregation
were mainly these――that the French troops should return home; that
no foreigners hereafter should be employed in Scotland without the
sanction of Parliament; that an act of oblivion should be passed for
all injurious deeds committed against the laws of the kingdom from the
6th of March, 1559, till the 11th of August, 1560; that a general peace
should be made amongst the lords and all the subjects of the kingdom,
so that those who were of the Congregation, and those who were not,
should have no cause of quarrel with each other for the things done
since the above date. That a Parliament should be held on the 10th of
July, and adjourned to the 11th of August; and that this parliament
should be as valid as if it had been expressly summoned by their
majesties the King and Queen, provided that nothing be treated before
the 1st of August.¹ Peace was proclaimed on the 8th of July, and a few
days afterwards the French and English troops departed from Scotland.
¹ Fœdera, Volume XV., page 593, _et seq._; Keith, Volume I.,
pages 298‒306.
The Queen-Regent had removed into the castle of Edinburgh on the
approach of the English army. She was wearied with the responsibilities
of her position, and, worn out, she died on the 10th of July, 1560. On
her death-bed she showed a nobleness of feeling and a magnanimity of
soul which moved the minds of the hardest reformers; she called for
Willock, the reformed preacher, and freely and cheerfully heard such
exhortations as he deemed suitable for the occasion;¹ and thus she
gave an example of religious humility and liberality unmatched in that
fierce intolerant age. The important place which she naturally assumed
in Scotland at this crisis, and the attitude which various associations
and influences led her to take up, have often been overlooked in the
heat of controversy; and she has been blamed for not acting in a way
which her position, and the circumstances of her connections precluded
her from attempting, even apart from her hereditary tendencies and her
domestic feelings and sentiments. She had often said that, if she had
been permitted to act according to her own wishes and judgment, she
would have ended the dissensions and settled the kingdom in peace.
¹ Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, page 29; Buchanan, Book XVI.,
Chapter 61; Knox, Volume II., page 71.
The reformed preachers, most of whom were in Edinburgh, were actively
engaged preparing matters for the parliament. They met in St. Giles’s
church on the 19th of July, and offered up solemn prayers for their
deliverance.¹ About the 20th of July, the first appointment of
ministers and superintendents to the chief towns and districts of the
country was made.
¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 84‒87.
The parliament met at Edinburgh in the beginning of August 1560. All
had been summoned who had a right by law or custom to be present,
and there was an unusually large attendance. Some time was spent in
discussing whether it was a legal meeting of the Estates. The leaders
of the Reformation had prepared a document containing what they deemed
necessary for reforming the Church. This they placed in the form of a
petition before the parliament. It was a rather sweeping production,
and extremely vehement in expression. One part of it referred to the
patrimony of the Church, but the parliament waived this important and
practical question of dealing with the revenues of the hierarchy; and
then requested the Reformers to lay before the House a summary of the
doctrines which they proposed to establish. The party selected for this
task proceeded rapidly with their work; and in four days they produced
a Confession of Faith which touched upon many subjects, and delivered
opinions upon some of the most difficult and speculative points which
have ever tasked the powers of the human mind. It was, however, only
a body of doctrine, and when on the 17th of August this Confession of
Faith was read in parliament, it was adopted without hesitation “as
wholesome and sound, and grounded upon the infallible truth of God’s
word.” Only three Earls voted against it, on the ground that they
would believe as their fathers believed before them, and no otherwise.
The spiritual estate, the bishops and the clergy, said nothing;¹ and
there is some reason to think that they had not formed any adequate
conception of the immense issues of the revolution which was being
enacted before their eyes――the rending the foundations of the Roman
Catholic Church.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
525‒534; Knox, Volume II., pages 89‒92, 220‒222. A far
greater number than usual of the lesser barons attended this
parliament; and their names were inserted in the roll after
the commissioners of the burghs. The Roman Catholic clergy
were represented in it by twenty-eight names, among whom
there were six bishops. A contemporary chronicler makes the
following mention of the Confession: “And upon the 20th day
of the said month, the whole Lords passed to the Tolbooth,
and there, after long reasoning of sundry matters concerning
the commonweal of this realm, the ministers presented in the
same a tractate called the Confession of our Faith, which
being read was received and admitted therein.”――_Diurnal of
Occurrents_, pages 279‒280.
This parliament passed an act against the mass, and another abolishing
the authority of the Pope in Scotland. By the first act, any person who
said mass or attended to hear it was liable to have all their moveable
goods confiscated, and to be otherwise punished at the discretion of
the magistrate; for a second fault, banishment; and for the third, the
punishment of death. It was declared that in future the Bishop of Rome,
called the Pope, should have no jurisdiction in Scotland, nor should
any bishop or persons whom he might appoint, dare to act, under the
penalty of proscription and banishment from the kingdom.¹ The Scottish
nobles had now done their work. They had at last laid the Church of
their fathers in the dust; hereafter we shall see what was the real
depth of their religious feelings and convictions, and how true and
faithful they were to the religion which they had professed to fight
so hard to establish.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
534‒535.
CHAPTER XV.
_The Creed and Organisation of the Reformed Church._
THE Confession of Faith, ratified by the Parliament of August 1560, was
composed by John Knox, John Winram, John Spottiswood, John Willock,
John Row, and John Douglas. It comprised twenty-five very short
chapters; and a brief preface, which stated that the Scottish Reformers
had long desired to proclaim to the world the sum of the doctrine which
they professed, and for which they had faced danger and infamy. In the
preface it is announced:――“If any man will note in our Confession any
article or sentence repugnant to God’s holy word, we humbly request him
to admonish us of the same, in writing, and on our honour we faithfully
promise him satisfaction from the Scriptures, or else reformation
of what is proved to be amiss.” This is an indication of fairness
and reasonableness; but it must be regretted that the Reformers
seldom acted in the spirit of the rule which they here recognised. The
preface concluded thus:――“And therefore by the assistance of the mighty
Spirit, our Lord Jesus, we firmly purpose to abide to the end by this
Confession of our Faith.”¹
¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 95‒96; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume III., pages 14‒22.
The Confession opened with the belief in one God, Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost. God is eternal, infinite, unmeasureable, incomprehensible,
omnipotent, and invisible; one in substance, and yet divided into three
persons. It treated concisely of the creation of man, his fall, and
original sin; the promise of a Saviour, and the continuation of the
faithful from Adam to the coming of the Messiah. As to the Incarnation,
Christ is declared to be truly God and truly man, having two perfect
natures united in one person. On this doctrine they condemned――“The
damnable and pestilent heresies of Arius, Marcion, Eutyches, Nestorius,
and all others who deny the eternity of His Godhead, or the verity of
His human nature, or confound them, or divide them.” This wonderful
conjunction of the persons of the Godhead, “did proceed from the
eternal and immutable decree of God, whence also our salvation springs
and depends. For God, the Father, of His mere mercy had elected us
in Christ Jesus, before the foundation of the world was laid, and
appointed Him to be our Head. So we confess and undoubtedly believe
in His Passion, Death, and Burial; his Resurrection and Ascension, His
session at the right hand of God, whence He shall visibly return at the
day of judgment.”
There are chapters on the Holy Ghost, the cause of good works, on
what these consist, the perfection of the law and the imperfection of
man; on the true Church, the power and the authority of the Scriptures;
on the immortality of the soul, the sacraments and their right
administration, the gifts freely given to the Church; and on the civil
magistrate.
The Confession recognised empires, kingdoms, and cities, to be distinct
realities and ordained by God. Emperors, kings, dukes, and magistrates
of cities, each in their proper rank and place, are to be regarded
as the holy ordinance of God, established for the manifestations
of His own glory, and the good of mankind. So those who go about to
destroy the existing constitution of the State, or to confound the
government of a kingdom, are not only the enemies of mankind, but they
also wickedly fight against the expressed will of God. Such persons
therefore as are placed in authority, should be loved, honoured, feared,
and held in the most reverent estimation. But then it is the duty of
kings and magistrates to reform and purge religion, and to suppress
all idolatry and superstition, according to the examples of the Old
Testament, as in the case of David, Ezechias, Josias, Josaphat, and
others, most worthy of being imitated.
“Arise, O Lord, and let thy enemies be confounded: Let them flee from
thy presence that hate thy godly name: give thy servants strength to
speak thy word in boldness: and let all nations attain to thy true
knowledge. Amen.”¹
¹ Knox, Volume II., page 120.
The six men who drafted the Confession of Faith, also composed the
First Book of Discipline; but it never received the sanction of the
government. It was divided into nine heads, and treated of doctrine,
polity, discipline and education.¹ It is a production embodying views
on various important points that penetrate deeply into the strata of
society, and wield a far-reaching influence over its destiny.
¹ The _First Book of Discipline_ is printed in the second
volume of Knox’s Works, pages 183‒257: and it is also
included in the _Collection of Confessions_, published in
1722.
The first head announced that the Gospel should be freely and openly
preached in every church and assembly of the kingdom; and that all
doctrine repugnant to this should be utterly suppressed, “as damnable
to man’s salvation;” that the books of the Old and New Testament
contained all things necessary for the instruction of the Church, and
for perfecting of the man of God: all laws and constitutions imposed
upon the consciences of men, without the expressed command of God’s
word, such as vows of chastity, celibacy, superstitious observance of
fasting days, keeping of saints’ days, prayer for the dead, and other
feasts, were therefore declared to be abolished in Scotland, and that
obstinate maintainers of these abominations ought not to escape the
punishment of the civil magistrate.
The second head asserted that there are only two sacraments, Baptism¹
and the Lord’s Supper, that the people should be instructed in the
language which they understood before participating in the sacraments,
and that in Baptism the element of water only should be used, oil, salt,
wax, conjuration, crossing, and all inventions of men were forbidden.
At the Lord’s Supper, sitting at a table was declared to be the most
suitable posture, because our Lord Himself sat with His disciples. It
was further directed that the people should partake both of the bread
and of the wine, that the officiating minister should break the bread,
and distribute it to those next to him, commanding the rest, every one
with reverence and sobriety, to break with each other, and that during
this action, some comforting passages of Scripture should be read,
which brought to mind the death of Christ Jesus, and the never-ending
benefit flowing from it to mankind.
¹ The Canons of the Roman Scottish Church on Baptism may be
seen in the _Statutes of the Scottish Church_, Volume II.,
pages 174‒175, 307‒309.
The third head required the abolition of idolatry with all its
monuments, such as abbeys, monasteries, friaries, nunneries, chapels,
chantries, cathedral kirks, canonries, and colleges, excepting those
used as parish churches and schools, and all the mansions and dwelling
places attached thereto, with the gardens and orchards. It should be
observed that it was only the monastic system, and the extinction of
its pertinents, which was really a consequence of the establishment of
Protestantism; not at all the mere wanton destruction of the buildings:
in the circumstances it was necessary to remove the ornaments and the
internal furniture of the Roman Catholic churches and establishments
of every description, as these were all intimately connected with the
worship of the system. It is always easy for people to be wise after
the event, but if those who now blame the Reformers had been upon the
scene at the time, their wisdom would in all probability have proved
of little avail. Under idolatry was included the mass, invocation of
saints, adoration of images; and finally, all honouring of God not
authorised in His holy word.
The fourth head dealt with the ministers and their lawful election.
In a reformed Church, it was said, no one ought to preach or to
administer the sacraments, till he be called. The ordinary vocation of
a minister was said to consist in election, examination, and admission.
It pertained to the people and to each congregation to elect their own
minister. Examinations must be in public, by the ministers and elders
of the Church: the applicant should be examined openly in the presence
of the people on all points of controversy between the Protestants and
the Catholics, Anabaptists, Arians, and other enemies of the Christian
religion, that all may hear and understand. After he has given evidence
of his soundness in doctrine, and evinced his ability to convince the
gainsayers, he must then appear before the congregation whom he is
intended to serve, and in the presence of his flock should deliver
several sermons, touching the articles of faith, jurisdiction, the
office of Christ Jesus, the number, the effect, and the use of the
sacraments, and finally, explain the whole Protestant conception of
religion. But great care should always be taken not to thrust any man
upon a congregation, if they were not satisfied with him; this point
was repeatedly stated in the First Book of Discipline.
Touching the form of admission of members to their charge, a sermon
should be preached by some specific member concerning the duties of
the office; and an exhortation should be given both to the minister
to be admitted and to his congregation. Any other ceremony was deemed
unnecessary, only the approbation of the people, and the declaration of
the presiding minister that the person then presented was appointed to
serve his particular church. Although the apostles used the imposition
of hands, yet seeing that the miracle ceased, this ceremony was
unnecessary.
The Scottish Reformers experienced much difficulty in the work of
organising their Church, from the paucity of qualified ministers
then in Scotland; to overcome this, they adopted the only expedient
of employing other two classes of persons in the work of religious
instruction, called exhorters and readers. In churches where no
ministers could be had, readers were to be appointed, persons who
could read distinctly the common prayers and the Scriptures; and
afterwards, some of these, if found qualified, might be advanced
to the position of ministers. The exhorters were a class between
the readers and the minister. As the name imports, they gave some
explanation or application of the parts of Scripture which they read
to the congregation.
The fifth and sixth heads are very important, and related to the
distribution of the possessions, rents, and patrimony of the church,
and provision for the ministers. It was exactly in these matters that
the strength and weakness of the reformation spirit in Scotland would
be tested; it is necessary therefore to indicate the scheme proposed
by the leading men among the Protestant clergy. It is very obvious
from what has already been stated, that some of the expedients which
they adopted were merely intended to meet the exigencies of the
circumstances, and to bridge over the great difficulties springing
out of the revolutionary changes of the religious movement. Owing to
the scarcity of qualified ministers the Reformers had recourse to the
expedient of selecting a number of persons with power to plant and
erect churches, and to appoint ministers within the bounds of their
respective provinces. To effect this they divided the country into five
districts, each of which was placed under a superintendent.¹ These men
were not to live idly as the bishops had often done; they had to preach
themselves three times every week, to labour incessantly and to travel
from place to place, till all the churches within their district were
provided with ministers, or at least with readers. Till they had gone
over their district, they were not to remain longer in one place than
thirty days. They were to examine into the life and diligence of the
ministers and readers, the order of their churches, the manners of the
people, the state of the poor, and the instruction of the young.
¹ The names of the persons chosen were John Carswell, for
Argyle and the Isles; John Erskine of Dun, for Angus and
Mearns; John Spottiswood, for Lothian and Tweeddale; John
Willock, for Glasgow and the West; and John Winram for
Fife――five in all. As this number of superintendents was
never increased, the General Assembly from time to time
appointed commissioners or visitors for special districts.
Their duties were of a very arduous nature, and their
stipends were not great. They had no superiority over their
brethren, and like other members they were entirely subject
to the General Assembly. Their special office was to plant
churches, and assist in the great labour of organisation.
At this time three or four churches were sometimes grouped
together, having a minister in one and readers in the others,
under the superintendent; and this continued for many years,
till a sufficient number of qualified ministers could be
obtained.
It was proposed to regulate the scale of stipend according to the
condition and circumstances of the ministers. The superintendents
were to get more than the ordinary minister of a parish, a minister
more than an exhorter, and the reader less than an exhorter. Proposals
were made for securing a provision for the wives and families of the
ministers; burghal privileges were demanded for their children, and
a special preference to be accorded to their sons in the schools and
colleges, with regard to the presentation of bursaries. Thus far,
touching the personal wants of the new clergy and their families.
It was proposed that a portion of the property of the Church should be
applied to national education. “Seeing that all men came into the world
ignorant, and God had ceased to illuminate them miraculously, a system
of education for the whole people was therefore a necessity.” A school
was to be attached to every church, and when a schoolmaster could
not be got, the minister or the reader was to teach the children and
the young people of the parish, and instruct them in the rudiments
of education, especially in the Catechism as translated in the Book
of Common Order, called the Order of Geneva.¹ They further proposed
that those who were unable to keep their children at school, should be
assisted out of the funds of the Church, especially the people in the
landward parts of the country.
¹ The reference here is to the translation of Calvin’s
Catechism. In another part of the First Book of Discipline
it is called the most perfect catechism that ever was used
in the Church. It was approved and adopted by the Reformed
Church of Scotland, and commonly printed with the Book of
Common Order. A translation of this catechism was reprinted
at Edinburgh in 1564, and it was long and widely used among
the Protestants of Scotland. There is a notice of early
editions in the sixth volume of Dr. Laing’s collected
edition of Knox’s works, page 341. Calvin’s Catechism was
divided into fifty-five parts, one for every Sunday, so that
the whole of it was gone through in little more than a year.
It contains three hundred and seventy-three questions and
answers.
The Palatine Catechism used by the reformed Churches of
Germany, and taught in the schools, was translated into
English, and printed in 1591 by public authority for the use
of Scotland; and it was sometimes printed with the Book of
Common Order and the Psalm Book. This catechism had three
chief headings――“1. Of Man’s Misery; 2. Of Man’s Deliverance;
3. Of Man’s Thankfulness.” It was divided into fifty-two
parts, one for each Sunday of the year, and contains one
hundred and twenty-nine questions and answers. It was
printed in the _Collection of Confessions_, published at
Edinburgh in 1722, Volume II. pages 273‒352.
There was a little catechism in Latin which was used in the
grammar schools. It embraced forty-one questions and answers.
In 1592, the General Assembly authorised a Catechism, which
was drawn up by John Craig, with the assistance of Robert
Pont, Thomas Buchanan, and Andrew Melville; its title is――“A
form of Examination before the Communion.” The Assembly
ordered it to be used in families and to be taught in
schools. _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 574, 784, 788.
It is known by the name of Craig’s Catechism. It has twelve
headings, and contains ninety-six questions and answers.
The eighty-sixth question is this――“What is the office of
the Christian magistrate in the Church? A. He should defend
the true religion and discipline, and punish all troublers
and contemners of the same.”――_Collection of Confessions_.
Volume II., pages 363‒377. A new edition of Craig’s
Catechism was prepared and issued some years ago by W. T. G.
Law of the Signet Library, Edinburgh.
The state of the poor labourers of the ground was noticed, with the
remark that they had been long oppressed. The Reformers were grieved
to see that some of the barons were so cruel to their tenants, and
extorted from them as much, and even more, than the priesthood had done;
and they argued earnestly that this class should now be relieved of a
part of the burdens which had so long pressed upon them. It was also
firmly maintained in the First Book of Discipline, that the poor and
the helpless ought to be supported and sustained from the property of
the Church.
The seventh head treated of ecclesiastical discipline. A distinction
was drawn between crimes which should be punished and put down by the
State, and those which fell under the discipline of the Church. All
capital crimes ought to be punished by the civil power; but drunkenness,
excess in eating, oppression of the poor by cruel exactions, or
cheating in buying and selling, properly appertained to the Church
to punish as God’s word commanded. Owing, however, to the confusion
introduced by the Roman Catholic system: “The Church of God is
compelled to draw the sword against such open and manifest offenders,
cursing and excommunicating all such, as well as those whom the civil
sword ought to punish as the others, from all participation with her in
prayers and sacraments, till open repentance manifestly appears in them.
As the form of proceeding in excommunication ought to be grave and slow,
so when once it is pronounced against any person, whatever their rank
and condition may be, it must be kept with all severity. For laws made
and not kept engender contempt of virtue, and bring in confusion and
liberty to sin.” The same sharp and inflexible rules of discipline were
to be applied to all ranks in the kingdom, to the rulers as well as
to the ruled, and even to the preachers themselves as well as to the
humblest in the nation. Here at least there was a thorough recognition
of equal justice and no respect of persons.
The eighth head related to the election of elders and deacons. The
most intelligent, faithful, and honest men that could be found within
the Church should be nominated for election, and their names publicly
announced by the minister to the whole congregation. Regarding the
form of voting, so that every man might give his vote with freedom,
each congregation was left to adopt such rules as seemed most likely
to attain the end. They were to be elected yearly, but those in office
the preceding year might be re-elected. The elders were to assist the
minister in all the public affairs of the church, in judging causes,
and in admonishing the licentious; for by the gravity of the elders,
the levity and unbridled life of the immoral should be corrected and
restrained. They were to observe the life, diligence, and study of
the minister himself, to admonish and correct him, and when necessary,
with the consent of the congregation and the superintendent, they
might depose him. The office of the deacon was to receive the rents
and gather the alms of the church, and to keep and distribute them as
should be appointed. They were also to assist the minister and elders
in deciding causes, and they might be admitted to read publicly, if
required, and found fit to perform that duty. The deacons personally
should be sober, humble, lovers of concord and peace, and examples of
godliness to all. The elders and deacons were to receive no stipend,
because they held office only from year to year, and because their
services to the Church did not prevent them from attending to their
private business.
The ninth head referred to the polity of the Church, which embraced
those things that might bring the rude and ignorant to knowledge,
inflame the learned to greater fervency and to retain the Church in
good order. It was then stated that there were two kinds of polity, the
one necessary, the other merely expedient and amenable to circumstances.
The first required that the word should be truly preached, the
sacraments rightly administered, and the common prayers publicly
offered; that children and rude and ignorant persons should be
instructed in the chief points of religion, and offenders punished, as
without these there was not the face of a visible Church. The second
touched upon such matters as that psalms should be sung, that certain
portions of Scripture should be read when there was no sermon, and
that on this or the next day of the week, few or many, the congregation
should meet for worship. Regarding points of this character each
congregation was permitted within limits to frame rules suitable to its
circumstances. It was required, however, that in all the chief towns
there should either be a sermon or common prayers every day, with some
exercise of reading the Scriptures. In every notable town it was also
required that there should be sermon and prayers on one day of the week,
besides Sunday; and during the time of this service both masters and
servants should cease from their business and labour. In all places
the Sunday was to be regularly kept: in the forenoon the Word was to
be preached, the sacraments administered, and marriage solemnised;
and in the afternoon the children should be taught in their catechism
and examined in the presence of the people, as thereby the old as well
as the young might be better enabled to understand the questions and
answers propounded, and the doctrines of Christianity. To promote this
great end every church should have an English Bible, and the people
were commanded to convene at befitting times to hear it read and
interpreted, and thus by degrees to dispel the grovelling ignorance
and thick darkness which had so long enslaved their bodies and minds.
Concerning marriage, it was found that the existing relations of
the different sex were of the most lax and immoral character. Under
the Roman Catholic system, the practice of divorce, of dissolving
marriage by granting dispensations on various grounds, tended to foster
immorality and to encourage crimes of the most atrocious description,
more especially among the upper classes.¹ The Reformers, therefore,
endeavoured to frame regulations calculated to remedy this class of
social evils. Henceforth marriage must be publicly celebrated in the
face of the Church; and to avoid all suspicion, the banns should be
proclaimed on three successive Sundays. On no consideration should
secret marriages be permitted; the ceremony should be solemnised
publicly.
¹ _Statutes of the Scottish Church_, Volume II., pages 130‒131,
297.
Touching burial it was stated:――“In all ages it has been held to
signify that the same body that was committed to the earth should not
utterly perish, but should rise again.” From what immediately followed,
it is pretty clear that the Reformers were reluctant to abolish all
the forms and ceremonies which till then had been associated with
the burial of the dead. This is not surprising, as veneration for the
memory of the departed is one of the strongest and deepest sentiments
of human nature; it touches those tender strings of the heart which
are at once the source of the purest emotions and the noblest feelings
of our common humanity. In Scotland, as elsewhere, from the earliest
period there is ample evidence of this respect for the memory of the
deceased, and it was keenly felt by the Reformers themselves. At the
same time they were more strongly impressed by the baneful results
which superstitious notions and practices had produced; and thus
without much discrimination they put a ban on the expression of one
of the most affectionate features of human character, when, to avoid
all superstition, they enjoined――“that the dead should be conveyed to
the place of interment with some honest company of the Church, without
either singing or reading; yea, without any kind of ceremony hitherto
used, other than that the dead be committed to the grave, with such
gravity and sobriety as those that be present may seem to fear the
judgment of God, and to hate sin, which is the cause of death.”
The First Book of Discipline concluded with an article concerning the
punishment of those who profane the sacraments and contemn the Word
of God. It suggested that very severe measures should be adopted for
the repression of all such abuses within the kingdom. This Book of
Discipline was not sanctioned by parliament, but it was approved by
an act of the Privy Council in January, 1561, and about thirty of the
nobles and gentry subscribed it. The Reformers failed to obtain any
settled provision or adequate allowance for the new clergy out of the
confiscated lands of the Church; and none of the Acts of the Parliament
which abolished the Roman Catholic religion were ever sanctioned by
Queen Mary.
The Book of Common Order, mentioned in the First Book of Discipline,
was a kind of directory of public worship.¹ It contained a form of
prayer for the ordinary meeting of the congregation. At that time
extempore prayer was not common in Scotland, nor anywhere else
among the reformed clergy. The book also gave directions for the
administration of the sacraments; a form of marriage; a prayer to be
said at the visitation of the sick; and instructions on the order of
ecclesiastical discipline.² There were also two treatises, the one on
fasting, and the other on excommunication. These, however, were written
and adopted by the Church a few years later, and will fall to be
noticed in connection with other influences which affected the people.
¹ It was an adaptation of the Order of Geneva――the forms of
worship which had been received by the English congregation
in that city. Of this congregation Knox was for some time
pastor, hence it was sometimes called the Order of Geneva.
The Geneva edition of 1558 was reprinted at Edinburgh in
1562, and again in 1564, and it was approved and sanctioned
by the General Assembly; the subsequent editions were
numerous, and commonly printed with the old metrical version
of the psalms. _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 30, 54.
In Dr. Laing’s edition of Knox’s Works, accurate and minute
details on these points will be found.
² _Collection of Confessions_, Volume II., pages 372, 468;
1722. Knox’s Works, Volume VI., pages 275‒333.
The system of doctrine and polity of the Reformed Church of Scotland
as presented in the Confession, the First Book of Discipline,
the Catechism, and the Book of Common Order was pretty distinct,
although on several points rather crude and imperfectly developed. The
doctrines of Calvin were adopted by the Scottish Reformers with little
modification, and it was at this time that Calvinism seized the minds
of men with irresistible power.¹ The Calvinistic modes of belief and
thought were decidedly more opposed to the Roman Catholic tenets than
the doctrines of Luther. Of this fact, the Catholics themselves were
well aware, and hence the intense bitterness that eventually prevailed
everywhere, when Calvinists and Romanists came into conflict with each
other. In Scotland amongst the Protestants heresy was for a long time
quite unknown; the disputes which arose within the Reformed Church
in this country were always about points of polity or external forms,
or the limits of the liberty and power of the Church. The first brunt
of the battle was directed against the Roman Catholic system; and
it is vain and untrue to deny that the Protestants persecuted the
Catholics. The moral ideas and sentiments of the sixteenth century
were comparatively narrow and imperfectly developed, and Knox and his
associates would most assuredly not have taken it as a compliment, if
they had been told that they tolerated the Catholics. The Reformers
distinctly, emphatically, and constantly, proclaimed that it was
the duty of the State and the Church to punish and extinguish the
confessors of the mass and other forms of idolatry. The proceedings
of the General Assemblies, the Acts of Parliament, and other national
records, contain endless evidence of this. What else could have been
expected? A nation does not spring up to an elevated moral position in
a day or in a few years; and the ultimate results of a great revolution
cannot justly be measured by its immediate effects. On the contrary,
the movement must be followed century after century ere its truth and
glory can be fully apprehended.
¹ On the re-establishment of Protestantism in England at the
accession of Queen Elizabeth, the English bishops would
have gladly dispensed with Episcopacy, and the ceremonies
which the Queen imposed were barely tolerated. In regard to
the great question of the real presence the majority of the
bishops agreed with the Swiss Reformers. Hunt’s _Religious
Thought in England_, Volume I. pages 39‒41. For further
evidence of the influence exerted by Calvin on the Reformed
Church, see Hagenbach’s _History of Doctrines_, Volume II.,
178‒183, and Ranke’s _History of the Popes_. Blunt,
_Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology_
The first General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 20th of December,
1560. There were only a few ministers present, but a number of lay
commissioners attended. The Assembly enumerated and recorded the
names of those who were deemed best qualified for preaching the word
and administrating the sacraments, and reading the common prayers in
all the churches. The ministers and readers together did not exceed
sixty in number; and it can easily be seen that the difficulties
and obstacles which the leaders of the Protestant revolution had to
overcome, were something enormous; but they boldly proceeded to meet
the necessities of the circumstances, in the way already indicated,
by placing a man over a district to organise and appoint readers and
exhorters to the churches where ministers could not be obtained.¹
¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 3‒6.
Another General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 26th of May, 1561. It
passed an act for the suppression of the Catholic worship throughout
the kingdom; and measures were proposed for strengthening the hands of
the superintendents. A supplication was sent to the government calling
on them to take order――“With the pestilent generation of that Roman
Antichrist within the realm, who was again threatening to erect their
idolatry.” The Privy Council acceded to their request and passed
an act thereon; and the Protestants went forward with their work of
suppression and reorganisation.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 8‒10.
CHAPTER XVI.
_Reign of Queen Mary._
WHILE the Protestants were still uneasy and somewhat alarmed by the
intelligence that France had firmly refused to confirm the Treaty
of Edinburgh, or to ratify any part of the proceedings of the last
Parliament, the welcome tidings reached Scotland that Francis II. had
died on the 6th of December, 1560. As this event broke and limited
the sway of that scheming and ambitious house of Guise, the death of
the young king was hailed with undisguised satisfaction by the leaders
of the Protestants. The work of the Reformation in Scotland proceeded
without serious interruption from any quarter; and the nation began to
look for the early return of their Queen without misgiving.
A considerable section of the people still professed to adhere to
the old religion, and they were headed by the Earl of Huntly. This
noble was then almost the supreme ruler in the north and north-west of
Scotland; and he put himself forward as the representative of the Roman
Catholics. John Lesly, the parson of Oyne, and afterwards bishop of
Ross, was deputed in April 1561, to proceed to France and represent the
views of the Catholic party to Queen Mary. He suggested that she should
land at Aberdeen, where twenty thousand troops would be ready at her
command; and with these a blow might be struck against the Protestants.
This plan was not followed by the Queen; but it had some connection
with events which happened shortly after her return to Scotland.¹
¹ Lesly’s _History Of Scotland_, page 294; Dr. Burton’s
_History of Scotland_, Volume IV., page 166.
The prior of St. Andrews, Lord James Stuart, the Queen’s natural
brother, passed through England on his way to France, as the deputy of
the Protestant Lords; and was warmly received by the Queen. After many
interviews with her brother, concerning the state of Scotland, Mary
informed him that she intended to return to the home of her ancestors.
She embarked at Calais on the 14th of August, 1561, and landed at Leith
on the 19th of the month. Her arrival was announced by the sound of
cannon; and all ranks of the people hastened to meet her and to welcome
her home. The loyal citizens of Edinburgh endeavoured to enliven her
first night at Holyrood by a musical performance, in which fiddles
with three strings were the leading instruments. This serenade seems to
have grated on the ears of her French attendants; and indeed the whole
people and their surroundings must have presented a strange contrast
to the luxury, the external polish, and the enchanting pleasures, which
had encircled Mary during the palmy days of her life in France. Many
of the citizens of the capital, however, were anxious to show their
goodwill towards her, and on the 2nd of September they presented to
her a cupboard which cost two hundred marks. The expense of the town in
connection with the banquet, the triumph, and gift to the Queen on the
occasion amounted to four thousand marks.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages 119‒122;
_Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 67‒69; Knox, Volume II.,
pages 269‒270.
The exceeding interest of the events crowded into the history of the
succeeding seven years, the tragic, and often dark character which
they assumed, and the vital importance of the main issue involved,
have induced me to attempt a concise explanation of the causes which
controlled the current of events, and ultimately led to the flight
of Queen Mary into England. This part of our history has often been
ably treated in the narrative form, and with every point of detail,
especially in reference to the character of Queen Mary herself; but
in nearly all the writings on this period there is rather much of the
partisan spirit, and too keen a tendency to rest the issue of the
momentous revolutionary movement on points of merely secondary weight
and import. The questions as to whether there is evidence that Mary
was implicated in the plot to murder her husband, whether this or
that noble was concerned in the plot to murder Riccio and Darnley,
whether Mary’s marriage with Bothwell was voluntary, or forced by
violence; how this King or Queen struggled to outwit and befoul another;
or how this statesman and that confounded each other, by framing
misrepresentations――such are the questions and matters which mostly
fill the literature on the reign of Queen Mary. But without by any
means ignoring the relative value of the literature, the chief aim
of this chapter will be to reach the underlying ideas, not of the
literature itself, but of the Reformation movement.
It is quite unnecessary to dwell on the charming beauty, the varied
accomplishments, and the unquestionable talents of Mary Stuart, Queen
of France and Scotland. But once for all it must be stated that I am
not a hard and fast apologist of Mary throughout her chequered career;
although on the other hand, I have been unable to discover that she
was so deceitful, immoral, and wicked, as she has often been painted.
If she be measured by the standard of morality common amongst her
contemporaries of the sixteenth century, she will not suffer by a
comparison with the best of them. The cupidity and faithlessness of
the royal families and many of their counsellors, who were then trying
to sway the destinies of Europe, had reached a height of enormity
which would be incredible, if it were not attested by piles of
unimpeachable evidence. Everywhere the suffering of the lower classes
had became almost unbearable; and this was a time of destruction, of
revolution, and of renovation. In these circumstances it is unjust, and
historically false to single out Queen Mary because she was unfortunate,
as baser and worse than her compeers.
The Scottish nobles had long been accustomed to fight against the
Crown; and they had at last laid one of the strongest arms of the
throne in the dust. They had abolished the old Church and seized its
landed property; and what they had thus taken, they intended to retain,
while they eagerly looked for more. Most of them had joined with the
Reformers for no higher aim than the enlargement of their estates; and
the whole of their subsequent proceedings were quite consistent with
the origin of their reforming spirit. John Knox was smarting under the
sting of blasted hopes and defeated schemes. He at least acted from
honest intention and firm conviction. He believed that he was following
out the will of God, and delivering His message to Scotland. His whole
heart and soul was in his work, and he struggled with all his energy to
enforce what he deemed to be “the eternal truth of God.” Yet like other
men, he was intolerant, overbearing, and greedy of power. The party who
faithfully adhered to him were naturally suspicious, and dreaded that a
reaction might be attempted; and for the protection of their own lives,
and the safety of the reformed faith, they were always on the outlook
and ready to frustrate the machinations of those who were opposed to
it. That the utmost vigilance was necessary for the success of their
cause, they were well aware. Their scheme of life was narrow, and many
of their ideas extremely crude. But the Reformation on the other hand
embraced the elements of a social and religious revolution. It went
to the roots of evil, stirred the inmost thoughts of men, and aimed
at the elevation of society, from the humble tiller of the ground
to the occupant of the throne. Underneath all the rudeness of the
reformed preachers, there was the moving, invisible flow of the moral
principle――the consciousness of a God before and above all, and the
conviction of the justice of their cause. They believed that the
decrees of the Almighty were irresistible in their sweep. It was
chiefly in the “eternal decree” that the intensity of Calvinism rested;
and this absolute dogma was the secret of the influence which Calvin
so long wielded over the minds of men. So long as there was no question
touching the power of the mind to discover this decree, its influence
had full swing, and remained unimpaired.
The nobles and barons had gathered from all quarters to welcome Queen
Mary; but the trying circumstances in which she was placed, soon became
apparent. Though her personal talent for government was conspicuous,
she never had a fair chance as a Queen in Scotland. On Sunday, four
days after her arrival, when the preparations began to be made for the
celebration of mass in the royal chapel, the Reformers were greatly
offended. The more zealous of them openly asked whether this idol
should be again suffered, even in the Queen’s chapel. When it appeared
that there would be an attack upon the priest, the Queen’s brother, the
Lord James, guarded the chapel door during the service. After it was
over, John and Robert Stuart, other two natural brothers of the Queen,
took the priest between them and conducted him safely to his chamber.¹
¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 270‒271.
The following day a proclamation was issued, announcing that the
Queen was to make no alteration in the form of religion which she had
found existing when she returned to her kingdom, without the consent
of parliament. The people were enjoined to make no attempts either
publicly or privately to change the form of religion; but at the same
time the proclamation commanded that no one should molest any of the
Queen’s French followers or servants, for any cause whatever, under
the penalty of death.¹ On the following Sunday Knox inveighed against
idolatry, and declared what terrible plagues God had sent upon the
nations who indulged in this false worship. He had a special hatred
at the service of the mass, and dreaded the effects of allowing the
Queen to engage in the exercise of the Roman Catholic worship. In the
circumstances there was reasonable ground for his apprehension.²
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 266‒267;
1877.
² Knox, Volume II., pages 296‒277, Anderson’s _Collections_.
Queen Mary was naturally extremely annoyed at the outspoken proceedings
of the preachers, and resolved to try the effect of her wit upon
Knox himself. The Reformer had a long dialogue with the Queen which
is reported in his history. The Queen tackled him on a variety of
points, chiefly political; and even according to Knox’s report, clearly
held her own in the argument, showing at every turn a quickness of
perception and a dialectic tact which brought out the unyielding and
intolerant features of Knox’s character.¹
¹ Knox, Volume II., 277‒286.
Mary’s government, notwithstanding the alarm of the Protestants, was
for some years conducted with unusual success. Her brother, Lord James,
was placed at the head of affairs; and Maitland of Lethington, a man
of ability, was Secretary of State, and played an active part in the
Government. In September Mary made a progress to Linlithgow, Stirling,
Perth, Dundee, and St. Andrews, and was everywhere well received by
the citizens. She returned to Edinburgh in the end of September; but
Knox complained that she had polluted the places she had visited with
idolatry. Means were taken to punish the lawless Borderers and to
restore order amongst them, but with little success.¹
¹ _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 69; Volume II., page 287;
_Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 163‒165,
167, 168, 184.
As yet the Reformed Church was merely on sufferance; the head of the
State was a confirmed Roman Catholic; and there was no provision made
for the Protestant preachers. Knox and other ardent reformers had been
much mistaken when they supposed that the Lords of the Congregation
who had so actively assisted in pulling down the Roman hierarchy, would
also be ready to transfer its property to the new Church. The preachers
had rather foolishly imagined that the nobles, who at first had stuck
so close to the good cause, were really actuated by pure religious
motives and honest convictions. When the practical proposals for the
disposal of the lands and the wealth of the old establishment came
under their consideration their eyes were opened. The reformed clergy
desired the Parliament and Queen to ratify the First Book of Discipline,
but the reforming lords now asked in jeering tones――“How many of
those who subscribed that book would be subject to it?” Maitland
of Lethington said――“Many subscribed it in _fide parentum_, as the
bairns are baptized.” In the face of the remonstrances of Knox himself,
another of the lords said――“Stand content, that book will not be
obtained.” Then said Knox, “Let God require the lack which this poor
commonwealth shall sustain of the things therein contained from the
hands of such as stop the same.”¹
¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 295‒298.
By an Act of the Privy Council, 22nd of December, 1561, it was proposed
to appropriate a third of the revenue of all the benefices in the
kingdom to the Crown. The Catholic bishops and clergy who were still in
possession, were to retain the rents and proceeds of their benefices,
except the third which was to be applied to the purposes of the Queen
and the government of the country, and to making a reasonable provision
for the Protestant ministry. The rentals of all the benefices in the
kingdom were ordered to be given in at a specified time, that the
amount of the thirds might be ascertained and the arrangements carried
out. A Royal Commission was appointed with power to carry the Act
into effect, but those who were in possession of the benefices seem
to have paid little or no heed to it. On the 12th of February, 1562,
the Council complained, “That the Queen’s Majesty and the Council,
and others appointed by her for receiving the said rentals, have
continually since the said 24th of January awaited upon the receiving
thereof; yet only a very small number of them have produced their
rentals, contemning thereby not only Her Grace’s ordinance and
proclamation, but also herself and her authority, like as if they
were princes and not subjects, expressly against reason, equity, and
justice.” Her Majesty and the Council therefore resolved to appoint
factors to intromit, gather, uplift, and receive the rentals in all
cases where they had not been given in according to the ordinance.¹
The reformed clergy were extremely displeased with this arrangement,
and Knox expressed his opinion on its defects as usual with great
freedom: “Well, if the end of this order pretended to be taken for the
sustentation of the ministers be happy, my judgment faileth me; for I
am assured that the Spirit of God is not the author of it; for, first,
I see two parts freely given to the devil, and the third part must be
divided between God and the devil. Well, be witness to me, that this
day I say it, or it be long, the devil shall have three parts of the
third; and judge you then what God’s portion shall be.” Many were
offended at this language, and some were not ashamed to affirm that,
“After the ministers were sustained the Queen will not get at the end
of the year as much as to buy her a pair of new shoes.”² Knox was
pretty near the truth, for by grants of lands, long leases, alienations,
pensions, actual seizure by force, and other means, the nobles and
gentry swallowed up the greater part of the property and revenue of the
Roman Church.³
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 192‒194,
196, 199, 201‒203, 204‒206. Among the public records there
are several volumes of accounts of the collectors of the
thirds of benefices, beginning in 1562.
² Knox, Volume II., page 310.
³ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 287‒288,
412‒413, 477‒479, 487‒488, 573‒575, _et seq._
The stipends granted to the reformed ministers were not large. The sum
fixed for the ordinary ministers was to range from one hundred marks
to three hundred. But from various causes even this small sum was very
irregularly paid, and the ministers were constantly complaining in the
General Assembly. Some persons had the audacity to tell them that many
of the barons had not so much to spend as they had; but this comparison
was deemed unfair and inapt, as a baron might augment his rent by
engaging in other business, while a minister had no other source of
income but his stipend, and required books and quietness in order to
study and work to edify the Church of Christ. When the clergy put these
reasons before the authorities and complained of their poverty, they
were told that the Queen could not spare greater sums. The preachers,
however, often sounded into their ears――“O, happy servants of the devil,
and miserable servants of Jesus Christ, if after this life there was
not a hell and a heaven! For to the servants of the devil, to your dumb
dogs, and horned bishops, to one of these idle bellies, ten thousand
a-year was not enough; but to the servants of Christ who laboriously
preach the Gospel, a thousand pounds; how can that be sustained?”
Lethington, the Queen’s secretary of state, said that the ministers
were paid so much every year by the Queen, and he asked, “Was there
ever a minister that gave thanks to God for her Majesty’s liberality
towards them.” Then “one smiled and answered, Assuredly, I think that
such as receive anything gratis of the Queen, are unthankful if they
acknowledge it not, both in heart and speech; but whether the ministers
be of that rank or not I greatly doubt. Gratis, I am assured, they
receive nothing, and whether they receive anything at all from the
Queen wise men may dispute. I am assured that neither the third nor
two parts ever appertained to her predecessors within the realm these
thousand years bypast; neither has the Queen a better title to that
which she usurps, be it given to others, or taken to herself, than such
as crucified Christ Jesus had to divide his garments among them. And if
the truth may be spoken, she has not so good a title as they had; for
such spoil used to be the reward of such men, and in that point these
soldiers were more gentle than the Queen and her flatterers, for they
parted not the garments of our Master till that he himself was hung
upon the cross; but she and her flatterers part the spoil while poor
Christ is yet preached amongst you.... Let the Catholics, who have the
two parts, some that have their thirds free, and some that have gotten
abbacies and feu lands, thank the Queen, and sing _Placebo Dominæ_. The
poor preachers will not yet flatter for feeding their belly.”¹
¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 311‒313; _Book of the Universal
Kirk_, pages 16, 17, 23, 30, 47, 48.
But dissatisfied as the Protestant ministers were with Mary, her
proceedings were probably much more displeasing to the magnate of
the north, the Earl of Huntly. The Earldom of Moray was detached from
Huntly’s possessions and conferred on Lord James, who was henceforth
known as the Earl of Moray. Huntly had not changed his religion, but
throughout the religious struggle his chief aim had apparently been
to retain his vast territories and his influence in the north. Various
incidents and circumstances indicated that Moray had resolved to
crush him. The house of Huntly had long ruled supreme over the smaller
chiefs in the northern Highlands, and had sometimes committed acts of
oppression and injustice amongst them. In August, 1562, the Queen and
Moray moved northwards; Huntly suspected that mischief was brewing
against him, and sent his wife to Aberdeen to meet the royal party
and to ascertain their purpose. The Countess invited the Queen to
♦Strathbogie Castle, but Mary declined, and proceeded by Rothiemay, and
onward to Inverness. The gates of the Castle of Inverness were closed
against the Queen, but it was besieged, and taken, and the garrison
hanged. Some of the clans, including the Clan Chattan, the Camerons,
and the Monros who had been under Huntly, now that they had an
opportunity, deserted his standard and joined the Queen. When the royal
party were returning to Aberdeen, Huntly with a body of his retainers
followed them, marching well up along the heights to the Hill of Fare,
in Midmar, where the battle of Corrichie was fought on the 28th of
October, 1562. The royal troops under Moray were victorious, and the
Earl of Huntly himself was slain, his followers scattered, and two
of his sons captured. Two days after the battle, five gentlemen of
the Gordon clan were hanged on the Castlegate of Aberdeen; and three
days later, Huntly’s son, Sir John Gordon, was executed at the same
place, “greatly pitied, for he was a manly youth, exceedingly handsome,
and just in the opening bloom of life.” George Gordon, the late
Earl’s eldest son, was seized and imprisoned in the Castle of Dunbar.
Strathbogie Castle was then rifled. Many of its rich furnishings and
ornaments were taken to Holyrood House; others of them were carried by
Moray to the Castle of Darnaway to fit up his newly acquired residence
in this ancient Earldom, which was once held by James Stuart, a natural
son of James IV. George Gordon was tried for treason, convicted, and
sentenced to be executed. But in 1565 he was pardoned by the Queen, and
restored to his titles and lands as fifth Earl of Huntly. Thus Moray
managed to crush and humble the great house of Huntly only for a time.
Early in November, 1562, the Queen proceeded from Aberdeen southward
by Dundee, Perth, Stirling, and reached Edinburgh on the 21st of the
month.¹
♦ “Stratbogie” replaced with “Strathbogie”
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 218, 219,
220, 222; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 73, 74; Buchanan,
Book XVII., chapter 36, 37.
The Court stayed in Edinburgh during the winter. The gaiety of the
Queen and her courtiers gave much offence to Knox and the reformed
preachers; and they were extremely outspoken touching the excessive
banqueting and dancing of the Court. It was said that some of the
dances then fashionable in the Queen’s Court were indecorous and
immoral, and that it was against these that Knox declaimed. It is
evident, however, that from the first the reformed clergy of Scotland
went too far in limiting and in denouncing almost every form of
amusement. But Knox had also a suspicion that Queen Mary’s dancing
was the expression of her heterodoxy and malignancy. As, “among other
things, he was assured,” he said in a sermon, “that the Queen had
danced excessively till after midnight, because she had received
letters that persecution was begun in France, and that her uncles
were beginning to stir their tails, and to trouble the whole realm of
France.” When the Queen heard of this sermon, she sent for Knox, and
accused him of having spoken irreverently of the Queen, of endeavouring
to make her an object of hatred and contempt amongst her people, and of
having exceeded the limits of his text. In self-defence, the Reformer
proposed to rehearse from memory what he had said in the pulpit; and
proceeded to deliver one of the most plain and vehement harangues ever
uttered in the presence of a monarch. “The complaint of Solomon is
this day most true, to wit: That violence and oppression do occupy the
throne of God here in this earth: for, while murderers, blood-thirsty
men, oppressors, and malefactors dare be bold to present themselves
before kings and princes, and the poor saints of God are banished and
exiled, what shall we say? But that the devil has taken possession in
the throne of God, which ought to be fearful to all wicked doers, and a
refuge to the innocent and oppressed. And how can it be otherwise? For
princes will not understand; they will not be learned as God commands
them. But God’s law they despise, His statutes and holy ordinances
they will not understand; for in fiddling and flinging they are more
exercised than in reading and hearing God’s most blessed word; and
fiddlers and flatterers are more precious in their eyes than men of
wisdom and gravity, who by wholesome admonition might beat down into
them some part of that vanity and pride whereinto all are born, but
in princes it takes deep root and strength by wicked education. And
dancing, Madam, I said, that albeit in Scripture I find no praise
of it, and in profane writings, that it is termed the gesture rather
of them that are mad and in phrensy than of sober men: yet I do not
utterly condemn it, provided ♦two vices be avoided; the former, that
the principal vocation of those who use that exercise be not neglected
for the pleasure of dancing, and secondly, that they dance not, as
the Philistines their fathers, for the pleasure that they take in the
displeasure of God’s people.” The Queen looked around and said――“Your
words are sharp enough as you have spoken them; but yet they were told
to me in another manner. I know that my uncles and you are not of one
religion, and therefore I cannot blame you, albeit you have no good
opinion of them.”¹
♦ “too” replaced with “two”
¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 330‒335.
The idea of religious toleration was adopted by the Protestants
in practice, no more than it was by the Roman Catholics. The only
difference between them was, that the first had introduced a principle
which would ultimately develop a spirit of toleration; whereas on this
point the principle of Romanism never changes, however circumstances
may modify its practical operation. As might naturally be expected
there was still a considerable section of the people unconverted to the
Protestant opinions, especially in the north, where the power of the
local Catholic ruler was only newly broken. In several other quarters
of the kingdom, where the influence of the local chief was on the
side of the old religion, the Catholic worship still prevailed. The
Protestant clergy insisted that the laws against the Romanists should
be enforced; but the government was negligent, and the preachers
threatened to take the matter into their own hands; as they firmly
believed themselves to be justified according to the command of God
to extinguish all idolatry. They apprehended some priests in the west,
and intimated to others that punishment awaited them. The Queen again
sent for Knox and once more tried her wit and policy upon him; and
this time she managed him far better than usual, and the two parted
on good terms. She promised to summon the offending Catholics, and to
show the Reformer that she would administer justice; and he blessed
her and departed.¹ The Catholics were accordingly summoned to appear at
Edinburgh before the Justiciary Court on the 19th of May, 1563. There
were about forty-eight persons brought before the court, and amongst
them the Archbishop of St. Andrews. They were accused of celebrating
and attending mass. Most of them were imprisoned in Edinburgh and
Dumbarton, and some in other places; but none of them was executed.²
It need hardly be said that the Queen was unwilling to punish the
professors of her own religion, but she yielded to the clamour of the
Protestants thus far, for the sake of other advantages.
¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 370‒376; _Diurnal of Occurrents_,
pages 75‒76.
² Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I., page 472; _Diurnal_,
page 75; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages
160‒161.
Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 26th of May, 1563, but it did little
to strengthen the walls of the reformed Church. Articles were presented
for moderating the excess of dress, and for the reformation of other
enormities; but they were all shuffled aside. The Acts of 1560 which
abolished Catholicism were not even mentioned. But an Act was passed
which gave full protection to all who had been connected with the
rebellious proceedings between the 6th of March, 1558, and the 1st of
September, 1561. This Act afforded much satisfaction to many of the
nobles, as it in a measure secured to them the lands on which they
had laid hands during the period of conflict and confusion: but the
preachers were not pleased with it, nor with any of the acts of this
parliament. Other enactments were passed touching the punishment of
witchcraft, adultery, and the restitution of the glebes and manses
to the ministers of the Church;¹ yet this did little to appease the
wrath of Knox. Before parliament dissolved, he preached a sermon in
the presence of the nobles, and spoke very plainly. “The Queen, say ye,
will not agree with us: Ask ye of her that which by God’s word ye may
justly require, and if she will not agree with you in God, ye are not
bound to agree with her in the devil. Let her plainly understand so
far of your minds, and steal not from your former stoutness in God, and
ye shall prosper in your enterprises. But I can see nothing but such
a recoiling from Christ Jesus, as the man that first and most speedily
fleeth Christ’s banner, holds himself most happy. Yea, I hear that some
say, that we have nothing of our religion established either by law or
parliament. Albeit that the malicious words of such can neither hurt
the truth of God, nor yet us who thereupon depend, yet the speaker for
his treason committed against God, and against this poor commonwealth,
deserves the gallows. For our religion being commanded, and so
established by God, was accepted within this realm in public parliament;
and if they will say that was no parliament, we must, and will say, and
also prove, that that parliament was as lawful as ever any that passed
before it within the realm.... And now, my Lords, to put an end to all,
I hear of the Queen’s marriage: dukes, brethren, to emperors and kings,
strive all for the best game; but this, my Lords, will I say (note
the day, and bear witness after) whensoever the nobility of Scotland
professing the Lord Jesus, consents that an infidel (and all papists
are infidels), shall be head to our sovereign, ye do so far as in ye
lieth to banish Christ Jesus from this realm; ye bring God’s vengeance
upon the country, a plague upon yourselves, and perchance ye shall do
small comfort to your sovereign.”²
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
536‒538.
² Knox, Volume II., pages 382‒386.
This came rather near an assumption of the gift of prophecy. There is
an element of supreme boldness, intense earnestness, and not a little
arrogance in it. But Knox had unquestionably a clearer view of the real
difficulty and danger which was then menacing the reformed Church, than
any other man in Scotland. That his language was strong, seething, and
sometimes rebellious, must be admitted; yet underneath it all he had
an unbending, unswerving, and true moral conviction, which he followed
with an unflinching resoluteness of will rarely equalled. He was
well aware that Catholicism in other countries was beginning to show
unmistakable signs of fresh activity and power; it had reorganised its
armies, and was rapidly recovering from the effects of the first shock
of the Reformation; in many things indeed Catholicism had reformed
itself. Though the fascinating smiles and enchantments of Queen Mary
had failed to cast their spell over Knox, they had won for her the
hearts of many. Day by day the prospects of the Protestants in Scotland
were becoming darker; and Knox adopted a special form of prayer for the
conversion of the Queen, the good of the kingdom, and the preservation
of the light of the word of God.¹ The prayer for the Queen was couched
in an extreme strain of phraseology, and it is not surprising that it
offended her. The current of events in Scotland seemed likely soon to
engulf the Protestant party and their Church in a sea of trouble. The
Queen was meditating and preparing for her marriage with a branch of
the Lennox family. The Earl of Lennox, after twenty years of banishment,
arrived at Edinburgh on the 23rd of September, 1564. Parliament met in
December and restored to him the family estates and titles. In the end
of the year the General Assembly met at Edinburgh, and petitioned the
Queen to put the laws in execution against the sayers and hearers of
mass, who were then so numerous throughout the kingdom.²
¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 387‒392, 428.
² _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 77; Keith, Volume II., page
228; 1845. _Book of the Universal Kirk_, page 53.
Henry, Lord Darnley, the eldest son of the Earl of Lennox, came to
Edinburgh on the 12th of February, 1565. A few days after, he visited
the Queen at Wemyss Castle in Fife; and soon found himself at a height
of fortune far too dazzling for his poorly gifted nature. He was quite
a youth, blooming and handsome, vain and full of ambition, but utterly
void of ability and moral character; and before he had been many weeks
at the Scottish court, he had made the Protestant lords his enemies.
The Earls of Moray, Morton, and Glencairn disliked him; and Moray,
who had been at the head of affairs since the return of the Queen from
France, soon began to feel that his influence and power were slipping
away. Darnley was a Roman Catholic, which further intensified the
complications throughout the nation. Moray at length began to concert
measures to prevent his marriage with the Queen.¹ A special meeting
of the nobles and chief officers of State was held at Stirling in
May 1565; and Mary announced to it her intention to marry Darnley.
The Protestants became greatly alarmed. They seemed to think that a
reaction was impending, and that at any moment the Queen might proclaim
the restoration of Catholicism. The Queen had intended to hold a
parliament at Perth to sanction her marriage; but the attitude which
Moray and his party assumed, rendered the step unsafe.²
¹ Keith, Volume II., pages 263‒265, 268‒275.
² _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 334‒336;
Knox, Volume II., pages 478‒482.
The General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 23rd of June, 1565, and
at once proceeded to adopt measures for the suppression of the mass and
other Catholic practices. They demanded that all popery, idolatry, and
jurisdiction of the Pope should be utterly extinguished throughout the
kingdom, not only among the people but also in the Queen’s own person
and household, without any exception. Mary’s answer to this demand
was very candid. She said, that she did not believe in the Protestant
religion, nor that there was anything wrong in the mass, that she
believed the Catholic religion to be well grounded; and she therefore
desired her subjects not to press her to receive any religion against
her conscience; as she had never pressed them, they should not press
her. She also stated that if she changed her religion, she would lose
the friendship of the King of France and other great princes, who
were her firm allies, to whom she could look for support in all her
necessities and difficulties; and that she would be indeed extremely
reluctant to hazard the loss of all these advantages in an instant.¹
¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 59, 67.
Meanwhile the Earl of Moray had broken off from the court, and
meditated a rebellion. On the 15th of July, he and his party met at
Stirling to consult upon their project. The same day the Queen issued
a proclamation at Edinburgh, announcing that she intended to make no
change in religion, and intimating to all her loyal subjects to prepare
themselves to attend her for fifteen days in the field, and to be ready
to appear the instant they were charged. The Queen and her adherents
were too active and numerous on this occasion for Moray and his party.
Seven days later a general muster of the Crown vassals was ordered.
Offers were made to Moray to appear before the council and obtain
satisfaction; but in vain. Mary ordered her intended marriage to be
publicly proclaimed; and on the 29th of July she and Darnley were
joined in wedlock amid rejoicing at Holyrood.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 339, 343,
345, 346; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 79‒80.
Various rumours were afloat as to the conflict between the Queen and
her nobles. Some said that it had its origin in envy, ambition, and
hatred, rather than in religion. The newly married pair, however, began
their reign by adopting vigorous measures. Moray and the Protestant
nobles who had joined him, were declared rebels: and to crush them
swiftly, the feudal vassals of the Crown were at short intervals
summoned anew to muster and rally round their King and Queen. Their
majesties also raised considerable sums of money from the citizens and
burgesses for licenses to absent themselves from the army. The disloyal
nobles, the Duke of Chatelherault, the Earls of Moray, Glencairn,
Argyle, Rothes, and other barons, had mustered about a thousand of
their followers. They soon found that the Queen and her party were too
strong for them. Mary at this time was exceedingly well served, and the
action of her government was prompt and decisive.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 347, 348,
349, 350, 353‒363; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume
III., pages 198, 200, 201, 202‒203. This old feudal mode of
raising an army then began to be felt a severe burden, and
♦people in business were glad to pay a sum of money to be
allowed to remain at home. But those who remained away from
the army without license, were brought before the courts
and fined; and it appears that a number of persons had not
answered the Queen’s calls to join the host. _Diurnal of
Occurrents_, pages 80‒81; Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_,
Volume I.
♦ “pesple” replaced with “people”
The provost of Edinburgh was an adherent of the Protestant Lords, and
the Queen at once commanded the town council to discharge him from his
office, and named another to be elected in his place. About the same
time the court had ordered the magistrates of the capital to suspend
Knox from preaching, but this the council firmly refused to do; and
several of the citizens fled to the banished Lords. On the other hand,
Lord George Gordon was restored to honour and to the Lordship of Gordon,
by royal proclamation at Edinburgh. The Queen now recalled Bothwell,
whom Moray hated, and had contrived to keep out of Scotland for several
years. He was then residing in France, and landed at Eyemouth on the
17th of September. He immediately proceeded to the court, and was there
graciously received by Mary, who restored him to all his hereditary
titles and offices. Along with the Earl of Lennox, he was appointed
commander-in-chief of the army, which the Queen and Darnley personally
accompanied. The rebellious lords after various moves and efforts found
themselves unable to face the royal army in the field. They retired to
Dumfries, and there issued a manifesto on the 8th of September, 1565,
calling upon the Protestants to rally round them. But few joined their
standard. They had rashly calculated on receiving assistance from
England, but none came; and on the approach of the Queen’s army, led
by Bothwell, they disbanded their followers, and retired beyond the
Border.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 369, 372,
379, 384; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 80‒84. In regard to
Knox the town council of Edinburgh came to this conclusion
――“On the 23rd of August, 1565, the bailies, council, and
deacons, being convened in the council-house, after long
reasoning upon the discharge of John Knox, minister, to
forbare preaching, during the stay of the king and queen in
this town, all in one voice concluded and delivers that they
will in no manner of way consent or grant that his mouth be
closed or he discharged from preaching the true word, and
therefore willed him at his pleasure, as God should move his
heart, to proceed forward in true doctrine as he had done
before, which doctrine they would approve and abide at to
their life’s end.”――_Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume
III., pages 199‒200.
The Queen and her government were now victorious, and many of the
Protestants dreaded that the Reformation would soon be extinguished in
Scotland. At the time there were many schemes and plots on hand among
the Roman Catholic States of Europe, and more in the fountain head――the
Curia of Rome――for the total overthrow of heresy and all its works.
Spain was deeply interested in the recovery of Britain to the Holy
See;¹ but the stream of events swept away this dream.
¹ Ranke’s _History of the Popes_, Volume I., page 406,
_et seq._
The marriage of the Queen with Darnley turned out to be extremely
unfortunate. She discovered when too late that her husband was a
vicious, vain, and childish fool, utterly unfitted to be her companion
and guide. Their domestic quarrels soon became notorious. The Queen
had several foreigners in her service. One of them named Riccio acted
as her foreign secretary. He seems to have enjoyed her confidence,
and was occasionally consulted by her on important matters. Darnley,
however, began to think that Riccio was his enemy, and fancied that he
had prevented the Queen from granting to him the Crown matrimonial. He
ran from one silly thought to another, until he came to the conclusion
that Riccio had frustrated his aim.¹ This is characteristic of all
weak-minded and naturally vain persons. They fancy that some one has
set himself purposely to defeat them; while all the time the cause of
their defeat is in their own defects. The Scottish nobles at once saw
Darnley’s weakness, and seeking a way to restore the rebel lords, they
fixed upon him as their tool, and on Riccio as their victim.
¹ Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, pages 132‒134, 136‒140; 1827.
A parliament was summoned to meet at Edinburgh on the 4th of March,
1566, to confiscate the lands of the banished lords. They had many
friends in Scotland and even in the government; but, although they
had made incessant efforts to obtain pardon and to be restored, the
Queen still held out against them. The Scottish nobles have never been
deficient in devising bold plots for the overthrow of their enemies
and the attainment of their ends. Accordingly Morton the Chancellor,
Lord Ruthven, Lord Lindsay of the Byres, and others, now entered into
a bond with Darnley for the murder of Riccio and the restoration of
the banished Lords, Moray and his associates, and pledged themselves
in return to procure for him the Crown matrimonial, on which he set
so much store.¹ It is plain, however, that Darnley was a mere tool in
the hands of the nobles. They had no intention of elevating him to the
throne. Their chief aim was to prevent the meeting of parliament, and
thus preserve intact the estates of the rebel lords. Probably they
foresaw that Darnley would prove false, and thus throw himself outside
the bond.
¹ _Ibid._, page 148; Keith, Volume III., pages 260‒263.
The plot was exceedingly well matured and everything was prepared for
its realisation. On the 7th March, 1566, parliament was opened by the
Queen in person. Darnley, instead of accompanying her, rode off to
Leith to enjoy himself among his companions. The first business of the
parliament was to summon the exiled nobles to appear before it on the
12th of March; but they were already moving towards Edinburgh.
The evening of the 9th of March was fixed by the conspirators for the
consummation of their dismal deed. The Earl of Morton commanded a body
of one hundred and sixty armed men, and took possession of the inner
court of the palace and secured all the gates; a party of these men
took up their position in the royal audience chamber on the ground
floor; thence Darnley ascended to the Queen’s apartments and Lord
Ruthven followed him. They found their victim sitting with his cap on
his head in her Majesty’s presence, along with a small social party
in the Queen’s supping-room. Some parley and sharp talk passed between
the Queen and Ruthven; but suddenly more of the conspirators rushed
in, instantly the tables and chairs were overturned in the scuffle,
and David Riccio was seized and dragged to an outer room, and there
stabbed to death. A guard was placed over the Queen; but in spite of
their vigilance several gentlemen escaped, and warned the citizens
of Edinburgh. The common bell was wrung, and the people rushed to the
palace with torch lights. They demanded the instant deliverance of the
Queen; but she was not permitted to speak to them: Darnley appeared and
assured the citizens that the Queen was quite safe, and commanded them
to go home. Darnley and Ruthven then prepared two proclamations to be
issued next day in the name of the King, the one ordering the citizens
of Edinburgh to keep order in the streets, and the other dissolving
the parliament, and commanding all the members to leave the city within
three hours, except those whom the King might request to remain. Lord
Ruthven placed men to watch the gates and all the private passages;
but in spite of the utmost vigilance of the conspirators, the Earls of
Bothwell and Huntly managed to escape during the night.¹
¹ Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, page 149; _Diurnal of
Occurrents_, pages 89‒90; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_,
Volume III., page 214; Keith, Volume II., pages 414‒418.
The following day, Sunday, the banished lords arrived in the evening,
and were ready to make the most of the peculiar circumstances. They
took possession of Edinburgh, and frustrated the proceedings of
parliament. But Mary soon disengaged her husband from the nobles, who
had murdered her favourite, and there can be no doubt that he was duped
by the Queen as well as by the nobles. He had neither the ability, the
resolution, nor even the recognised rough honesty of his day, to carry
him through such a plot. Mary and he slipped out a little past midnight
on Tuesday morning, and rode to Seton House, whence they were escorted
to Dunbar Castle.¹
¹ _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 92‒98; Sir James Melville’s
_Memoirs_, page 151.
When the confederate nobles rose that morning they found that they had
been completely outwitted, and that they were in imminent danger. A
large force quickly rallied round the Queen, who at once advanced upon
Edinburgh. The opposing party of nobles were unprepared to meet her
army, and immediately dispersed; Morton and Ruthven fled to England,
others fled to the Highlands, and some of them went home to their
estates. After a short time the Queen pardoned Moray, and some of his
associates; but on those directly concerned in the murder of Riccio,
she seemed determined to be revenged. Darnley exhibited the baseness of
his nature by loudly denouncing his fellow-murderers. His treachery he
hoped would win back the esteem and regain for him the love of his wife.
In reality it only made him loathsome to her, while the nobles regarded
him as an object of hatred and utter contempt.¹ When the Queen returned
to the capital, Knox left it and went to Kyle. Many persons were
apprehended in Edinburgh and accused of being concerned in the murder
of Riccio, but only two men were executed――Thomas Scott, Sheriff-Depute
of Perth, and Henry Yair.² On the 8th of June, 1566, the Council passed
an act commanding the people not to receive or entertain the Earl of
Morton, Lord Lindsay, the Master of Ruthven, and other thirty persons
named, because they were implicated in the vile and treasonable
slaughter of David Riccio, her Majesty’s French Secretary. All these
and some more of their accomplices were denounced as rebels and outlaws,
for not appearing before the Council and answering to the charges
against them.³
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 446‒437,
456‒457.
² Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I., pages 480, 481.
³ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 462‒464.
The Queen retired into the castle of Edinburgh, and on the 19th of
June, 1566, James VI. of Scotland and I. of England, was born. After
this event the Queen showed a disposition to listen to the suggestions
for reconciliation with the nobles who had rebelled against her. Moray,
Argyle, Glencairn, and others of the Protestant party, were re-admitted
to a share in the administration, although Bothwell and Huntly were
at the head of the government. Mary rewarded Bothwell for his very
important service by appointing him Keeper of Dunbar Castle.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., pages 374, 464, 468; _Burgh Records of
Edinburgh_, Volume III., page 219.
The series of events leading up to the murder of Darnley, the ♦marriage
of the Queen with Bothwell, and her subsequent imprisonment, have often
been detailed at great length. All that can be attempted here is to
indicate the motives of the chief actors and the circumstances which
controlled the form of the drama. On the one hand, we have the Queen
and her husband; Mary was a good Catholic and really wished to stand
well in the eyes of the Pope and the other Catholic rulers of Europe.
She was a woman of great energy and remarkable talents. Up to the time
of the birth of her son, she may be said, when everything is taken into
account, to have acted in the government of the country with surprising
moderation and fairness. But her feelings were extremely keen, her
sentiments tender and kindly, her emotions and passions strong; withal
she was a woman of exceptional polish and commanding presence. On
the other hand, Darnley had acted in a very singular way towards his
wife. He had exhibited so much folly, falsehood, depravity, and such
utter stupidity, that he must have completely alienated the Queen
from him; while on the other side, he had unpardonably offended
the pride and aroused the hatred of a party of the nobles, whose
revenge was deep and never slumbered. His doom was therefore settled.
Indeed, the aristocracy had long been following a line of policy
which tended directly to depress the authority of the Crown, and
they were not likely to let the opportunity slip, which a concurrence
of circumstances was now offering, without turning it to their own
advantage.
♦ “marrriage” replaced with “marriage”
The plot for the murder of Darnley, which seems to have originated with
Lethington, was soon concocted. According to custom a bond was drawn
up by Sir James Balfour, an experienced lawyer, and a firm friend of
Bothwell. This bond declared that Darnley――“was a young fool and tyrant,
and unworthy to rule over them.” They therefore bound themselves to
remove him by some means or another, and each engaged to stand true
to the other in this deadly enterprise. The bond was subscribed by
the Earls of Argyle, Huntly, and Bothwell, Lethington the Secretary
of State, Sir James Balfour, and others who joined in the conspiracy.
Their victim had become sick, and was visited by the Queen at Glasgow,
whence he was conveyed to Edinburgh on the last day of January 1567. He
was put into a house close to the city wall, called Kirk-of-Field, and
here the Queen was very attentive to him and for several nights before
the murder slept in the room immediately below him. At last everything
seems to have been prepared, and the evening of Sunday the 9th of
February, was fixed for his murder. When the day arrived everything at
the court was going on in the most natural and joyful fashion; the Earl
of Moray had left to join his wife at St. Andrews; and on the evening
fixed for the murder a marriage was to be celebrated between two of
the Queen’s servants. Meanwhile the servants of Bothwell and the Earl
himself were intently engaged in making the final preparations for the
horrible deed. The conspirators had resolved to blow up the house with
powder. After dark they placed a large quantity of that destructive
element in the room below the king, Bothwell himself superintending
the operations. About ten o’clock in the evening the Queen arrived from
Holyrood to join her husband, and passing the door of her own bedroom,
entered the apartment of the king. Some agreeable conversation passed
between them; and then the Queen recollected that she had promised to
attend the ball to be held that night in honour of her two servants’
marriage. She bade the King farewell and departed, with Bothwell and
Huntly and her attendants to Holyrood; and apparently only two of the
conspirators remained behind at the King’s lodgings. In spite of all
the care that had been taken by the contrivers of this dolesome plot,
there appears to have been a hitch in their proceedings. It is pretty
evident that Darnley and his servant had discovered their danger and
attempted to escape, and had got some distance away when they were
caught in the garden and strangled. Bothwell with a company of his
followers returned from the palace about midnight, and joined the two
conspirators, who had already lighted the train. The explosion shook
the earth for miles around, and all the inhabitants of Edinburgh were
aroused from their sleep. The murderers had to escape swiftly. Bothwell
ran to his apartments in the palace and immediately went to bed, only
to be awakened as if from slumber half an hour afterwards, by a message
informing him of the tragedy. He then, like an innocent man, shouted
“Treason! treason!” and along with the Earl of Huntly called on the
Queen to tell her what had happened.¹
¹ Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, pages 173, 174; Keith, Volume
II., pages 501‒507; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 105, 106;
Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I.; Chalmers’s _Life
of Queen Mary_, Volume I. And a very full account of all
the proceedings in the fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters of
Hosack’s _Mary Queen of Scots_, 1870.
It was well known at the time that the chief actor in this great
crime was Bothwell, but at the moment no one would have been safe to
accuse him. Many of the nobles were directly, and others indirectly,
implicated in it. The confused state of feeling and belief, and the
traditional policy of the nobles introduced a variety of motives into
the breasts of these desperate men.¹ The murder caused great excitement
among the people, owing more to the unusual way in which it was
committed, than to any feelings of compassion or humanity. Voices were
heard at night in the streets of Edinburgh denouncing the murderers. On
the 12th of February, a statement emanated from the Privy Council which
announced “that two hours after midnight, the house where the late
King’s grace was lodged, was in an instant blown in the air, while he
was sleeping in his bed, with such force and vehemence that the whole
lodging was destroyed and driven to dross to the very ground stone;
and not long thereafter the bodies of his grace and of a servant were
found dead within a short space of the same lodging.” A reward of two
thousand pounds and a grant of lands was offered to any one who should
discover the murderers of the King; but no one ventured to claim the
reward by an open accusation, although a bill was fixed to the door
of the parliament house, naming Bothwell, Balfour, Chambers, and
John Spense, as the guilty parties; and another placard named others
of the inferior actors in the tragedy. On the 14th of the month the
remains of the King were privately interred in the Chapel of Holyrood.
The following day the Queen, with Huntly, Argyle, Bothwell, and
the Archbishop of St. Andrews, removed to the house of Lord Seton;
and it was observed at the time that more inquiry was made for the
authors of the placards than for the murderers of the King. Bothwell
himself, surrounded by fifty armed men on horseback, rode from Seton
to Edinburgh, paraded the streets, and, with hideous oaths and furious
gestures, openly declared “that if he knew who were the authors of the
bills, he would wash his hands in their blood.”²
¹ “The conduct of the leading nobility of Scotland in the reign
of Mary Stuart has no parallel in the history even of that
turbulent country. We have seen that during her residence in
France, they assumed the right of disposing of her Crown. We
find them afterwards rising in rebellion against her because
she married Darnley; and yet a few months later, we find the
very same men conspiring to dethrone her and to bestow the
Crown upon her husband. Failing in this, they next resolved
to murder him; and after they effect their purpose, they
first recommend their chief accomplice as a new husband for
their Queen; and they then combine to punish him for the
murder. But it is easy to perceive that the conduct of the
great nobles, which at first sight appears so inconsistent,
and even inexplicable, was guided throughout by a fixed
determination to depress the authority of the Crown....
James V. had, during his brief reign, struggled manfully
against the common oppressors of the people and the Crown,
but he perished in the unequal struggle. The duty of
reducing the nobles to obedience next devolved upon his
daughter; and although possessing many qualities for the
task, she too found at last that it was beyond her strength.
So long as she suffered the dominant faction to exercise
the whole powers of the government, she was allowed to reign
in peace; but as soon as she adopted an independent course
by determining to marry, they turned against her, under
the pretence that their religion was in danger; and we find
them engaged in one desperate conspiracy after another,
until they finally succeeded in depriving her of her Crown.
We have no example, in ancient or modern times, of men
so utterly unscrupulous as those by whom this revolution
was accomplished. Combining as they did all the energy of
the North with more than the perfidy of the South, courted
at the crisis of the Reformation as well by England as by
France, they were equally ready to clutch the bribes and
betray the interests of both. At home the circumstance of
two minorities following in succession had greatly aided
their power, and they now had every prospect of a third. It
was only necessary to destroy the reputation of the Queen in
order to secure the triumph of the ruling faction for many
years.”――Hosack’s _Mary Queen of Scots_, Volume I., pages
331‒332.
² _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 498, 500;
_Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 106; Tytler’s _History of
Scotland_, Volume VII., page 90.
Touching the never-ending question of the guilt of the Queen in
connection with the murder of Darnley, it must be admitted that while
many of her enemies in Scotland were prepossessed against her, and
others of them were eager to assume that she was guilty, there is
evidence that she was informed of a proposal which had been under
the consideration of a party of the nobles for removing the King out
of the way; but no direct evidence has been found that she gave any
encouragement to the plot or in any way sanctioned it. The point has
been often fully argued on both sides; but much of the whole evidence
which has from time to time been adduced, is utterly worthless and
irrelevant. After a careful examination of the case I am compelled to
state that the circumstantial evidence is strong on the count that Mary
knew something about the plot; but that she encouraged or sanctioned
it seems to me improbable. In that direction there is no real evidence
against her. Indeed, she had too much judgment to commit herself to
anything of this character; and a mere silent acquiescence in what
was to be done, was in all probability the relation in which Mary
stood to the murderers of her husband. But even this was sufficient to
compromise her, while immediately succeeding events, and her relations
with the chief actor in the tragedy, tended to stain her character.
Rumours immediately began to arise that the Queen was about to
marry Bothwell, and that she was not innocent of the King’s death.
A correspondence was opened between her and the Earl of Lennox, who
naturally insisted that the parties who had murdered his son, should be
brought to justice, and distinctly called upon the Queen to take steps
to effect that end. At last, Lennox himself was charged to attend the
trial of Bothwell, as a party to the action; and on the 28th of March,
1567, the Queen consulted the Council concerning the application of
Lennox, as to the trial of Bothwell and others for the murder of the
King. The Council ordered them to be tried by a jury; and accordingly
the trial of Bothwell was fixed for the 12th of April.¹ The trial,
however, was a mere farce. The court sat in Edinburgh, and Bothwell had
three thousand of his armed retainers on the streets of the capital.
Certain forms of law were gone through, but no witnesses appeared
against him, and he was of course acquitted. He then published a
challenge, boldly offering single combat to any one, noble or commoner,
rich or poor, who dared to affirm that he was guilty of the murder of
the king. This had at least a touch of rather grim humour about it; and
as no one responded to his challenge, he could then aver that he had
satisfied the law and the ancient custom of his country.²
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., page 404; Sir
James Melville’s _Memoirs_, page 175.
² Keith, Volume II., page 563; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages
107‒108.
Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 14th April, two days after the
trial of Bothwell, and he bore the crown and sceptre before the Queen
when she rode to the parliament house. A number of acts were passed,
chiefly relating to ratifications of grants of land. John Erskine got
a ratification of the earldom of Mar, the regality of the Garioch, and
other lordships. There were also ratifications of lands to the Earls
of Huntly, Moray, Crawford, Morton, Rothes, and other barons, and
formal reductions of the forfeitures against the Earls of Huntly and
Sutherland, and a number of gentlemen of the name of Gordon, were gone
through. Bothwell got a grant of lands with the castle of Dunbar; and
an act was passed against the makers and up-setters of the placards and
bills which had given Mary and Bothwell so much annoyance. An act was
also passed which purported to recognise religious toleration.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
545‒590.
The relations of the Queen and Bothwell quickly developed. On the day
after parliament rose, Bothwell invited the nobility to a banquet at
an hotel in Edinburgh; and a large party of the nobles responded to
his hospitable call. After the red wine had been freely quaffed which
warmed all their hearts and quickened the circulation of their blood
till their faces smirked with joy, he placed before them a bond and
kindly requested them to subscribe it. This document stated that some
of Bothwell’s ill-willers and private enemies had malignantly slandered
and accused him of being art and part in the heinous murder of the late
king; but now that he was acquitted, and had also according to ancient
custom offered to prove his innocence by single combat, and having a
due regard to the nobleness of his house, and the good and honourable
service rendered by his predecessors, and more especially by himself to
her Majesty the Queen, “in the defence of her realm against the enemies
thereof;” considering moreover that it was ruinous to the kingdom
for the Queen to remain a widow, the bond then went on to recommend
Bothwell, a married man, as the most suitable match she could obtain
amongst her own subjects. All the nobles present, except the Earl of
Eglinton, who managed to slip away, signed the bond. They undertook
upon their honour and faith――“to promote, further, advance, and
set forward the marriage to be solemnised and completed between her
Highness and the said noble lord, with our votes, counsel, strength,
and assistance in word and deed, at such time as it should please her
Majesty to fix, and as soon as the law shall allow it to be done.” They
thus bound themselves to risk their lands and lives against all who
might oppose the marriage.¹
¹ Keith, Volume II., pages 562‒565; Hosack’s _Mary Queen of
Scots_, Volume I., pages 301‒304.
On the 21st of April the Queen went to Stirling to visit her son, and
remained two days. When returning to Edinburgh on the 24th, she was met
by Bothwell at the head of a company of his own retainers, and conveyed
to the castle of Dunbar. Whether the Queen was taken by Bothwell
against her will and forcibly detained, is a point which has long been
vehemently contested. Both sides have argued their special views at
great length, but with little decisive results.¹ Without venturing to
pronounce any dogmatic opinion upon the matter, it should be remembered
that in those days there was hardly anything too daring for a Scottish
noble to undertake if there was a chance of success and the object
interesting and important, and that obstacles which would now be
deemed insurmountable, were then often disregarded, and the main
aim pursued with a recklessness of consequences almost incredible. A
little attention to this feature in the character of the aristocracy
of the period might tend to clear the capture of Mary of some of its
difficulties; we should be prepared to see that neither honesty nor
consistency were essential features of the aristocratic character of
the age, and allowance should be made for the play and action of this
throughout the whole of the revolutionary movement. But when all the
circumstances are taken into account, and every corollary duly weighed,
it is rather difficult to believe that Mary was not aware of the
intention of Bothwell to lead her to Dunbar. If she had not been so,
there was no necessity for her yielding to him at the Bridge of Almond;
and even when in the castle of Dunbar, a woman of her mental resource
and energy could easily have found means of discarding him, without
leaving any disgrace upon her brow. Although Bothwell was a profligate
and unscrupulous man, it is not likely that he would have murdered the
Queen if she had resisted his advances.
¹ _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 109; Sir James Melville’s
_Memoirs_, page 177; _Birrel’s Diary_.
But according to the Queen’s own account, it was against her will
that Bothwell conveyed her to Dunbar castle. The Earl of Huntly, the
Chancellor, Lethington the Secretary, and Sir James Melville, were in
attendance upon her when she was carried to Dunbar. Melville said that
Bothwell boasted that he would marry her, “who would or who would not;
yea, whether she would herself or not;” and he also said that the Queen
could not help marrying Bothwell, after he had publicly carried her
off and dishonoured her. Mary was kept for a week a close prisoner in
Dunbar castle. Although the exact character of the acts and proceedings
which occurred between Mary and Bothwell during these seven days, can
never be accurately known, yet there is evidence that Bothwell was
permitted and even encouraged by many of the nobles――to shamefully
handle the Queen.
Whether Mary was passionately in love with Bothwell before the murder
of Darnley, seems a difficult question to settle. At a later stage,
an attempt was made to prove that she was by “The Casket Letters,” and
thus directly to connect her with the murder of Darnley, as a partner
of Bothwell’s guilt in the deed. Much has been written about these
letters, and great ingenuity has been shown both by the defenders
of Mary, and by her assailants. The one party have maintained that
these letters were forgeries――fabricated by the accusers of the Queen;
while another party have maintained with more or less confidence that
they were genuine letters of Mary’s addressed to Bothwell, or which
passed between her and him. Some of them are harmless, others are
incriminating. But the latest authority who has carefully examined
them and the related circumstances, Mr. Henderson, seems to have some
doubts about their genuineness; although he attaches much importance to
Morton’s recently discovered declaration concerning them. My own view
is that they are not genuine letters of Queen Mary to Bothwell, though
some parts of letters of hers may have been infused into them.
Bothwell conducted the Queen to the castle of Edinburgh on the 29th of
April, and preparations for their union were rapidly pushed forward.
He obtained a divorce from his own wife on the 7th of May, 1567, upon
the ground of consanguinity, and for adultery on _his_ part. The banns
of marriage were proclaimed on the 12th of May; and on the 15th of the
month the marriage was celebrated in the palace of Holyrood.¹
¹ Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, pages 178, 179; _Diurnal
of Occurrents_, page 111. Schiern’s _Life of James Hepburn,
Earl of Bothwell_, pages 237‒242. For full accounts of
the divorce between the Earl of Bothwell and his wife, see
Anderson’s _Collections_; Keith, Volume II., pages 571‒575;
and Riddel’s _Peer, and Consistorial Law of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 392‒394, 433, 434, 437.
But unfortunately the stream of events soon began to disturb the
happiness of the newly wedded pair. It was surely a cruel destiny that
so swiftly overtook them, and led to their final separation. For three
weeks after their marriage, they remained at Holyrood, and on the 4th
of June the Privy Council passed an act in the form of a declaration
from the Queen, upon the groundlessness of the rumours and fears of
the people. “Her Majesty, considering and thinking upon her own state,
and the government of her realm, over which Almighty God has placed
her supreme head and lawful inheritor, and moreover, recalling what
great alterations and strange accidents have from time to time occurred
during her Majesty’s reign; but especially since her highness entered
this realm and took the management and government of the affairs
thereof on her own person, which, all praise be to God, were happy
and quietly settled down by her Majesty: And God so prospered the
work in her hands, as well to her own honour as the satisfaction
and contentment of all her good subjects, that all the time of her
Majesty’s personal reign, they have never felt the force of foreign
enemies, but lived in good peace ... so that they may justly compare
their state during her Majesty’s reign to the most happy time that has
occurred within the memory of man. But as envy is the enemy of virtue,
and that seditious and unquiet spirits for ever seek occasion to stir
up trouble and strife; so however sincerely and uprightly, or however
perfectly her Majesty direct her doings, instead of thankful hearts
and good obedience, her Highness’ clemency is commonly abused and
recompensed with thwartness and ingratitude; and when she is thinking
least of any innovation, always some clamour is raised that alterations
are to be introduced, and the people persuaded to believe it; as if
her Highness’ care of the nation were lost, that she meant to subvert
the laws, to reject the counsel and assistance of her nobility, and
to handle all things without discretion, and contrary to the ancient
customs. But last, it is most grevious and offensive of all, when it
is said, that the health, preservation, sure custody, and guardianship
of her most dear and only son the prince, now in his infancy, has been
neglected by her Highness.”¹ Most people will be ready to exonerate the
Queen from the foolish slanders that she ever intended any harm to her
infant.
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 514‒516.
This declaration plainly shows that troubles had been gathering round
the unhappy Queen. She had ordered the feudal array to assemble at
Melrose on the 15th of June, for an attack upon the insolent and
disorderly borderers; but there was no appearance of the order being
obeyed. In fact, the ball was taking another turn. A party of the
nobles, including the Earls of Morton, Mar, Athole, and Glencairn,
Lords Lindsay, Hume, the Laird of Grange, and others, were then uniting
for a struggle against Bothwell, and, as the issue showed, also against
the Queen herself. The Queen and Bothwell left Edinburgh on the 7th of
June, and passed to Borthwick Castle, a place of great strength about
ten miles south of the capital. Two of the confederate leaders, the
Earl of Morton and Lord Hume, with a considerable force immediately
appeared before the castle, and Bothwell and the Queen with difficulty
escaped to Dunbar. The pair were now much alarmed. They issued a
proclamation commanding the Crown vassals of the district to muster
immediately. The confederates took possession of Edinburgh, and
proceeded to make themselves secure; and having managed to come to
an understanding with Sir James Balfour, the governor of the Castle,
they at once assumed all the functions of the government. On the 11th
of June, they issued a proclamation from the Canongate, touching the
crisis of affairs and ordering the people of all ranks, but especially
the burgesses and inhabitants of Edinburgh, to muster and assist
in rescuing the Queen from thraldom, “to preserve the prince’s most
gracious person from all such as would invade him, and to try and
purge the kingdom of the most cruel and abominable murder of his late
father,” by bringing the guilty parties to punishment.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 516, 517,
519, 520; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 114; _Burgh Records
of Edinburgh_, Volume III., page 231.
Meanwhile the Queen and Bothwell had mustered between two and three
thousand men, and advanced on Edinburgh. The confederate lords resolved
to meet them, and marching from the capital, the two parties came
in sight of each other near Musselburgh. Bothwell had posted his men
on Carberry Hill. After a day’s manœuvering and treating, the Queen
surrendered herself to the nobles, and Bothwell was allowed to ride
off in the direction of Dunbar. The Queen was taken to Edinburgh, and
when she at last saw herself a prisoner in the hands of a party of
the nobles, she was extremely displeased. She surrendered on the 15th
of June, and on the 17th was conveyed a captive to Lochleven, on the
alleged ground that she had refused to abandon Bothwell.¹
¹ Teulet, Volume II., page 313; Tytler’s _History of Scotland_,
Volume VII., pages 135‒137.
The confederate nobles soon developed their scheme, which was in
harmony with their traditions and previous history. It consisted in
taking the rights of the Crown into their own hands. They ordered all
the members of the Court of Session to resume their business; they
issued proclamations against Bothwell, and demanded the surrender
of the Castle of Dunbar; they gave instructions that those who were
suspected of being concerned in the King’s murder should be seized and
tortured; and all this was done by the very men who were themselves
more or less implicated in the murder of the King, and many of whom
had sanctioned the marriage of the Queen with Bothwell. They issued
a proclamation also against the inhabitants of Crail for abetting
Bothwell and furnishing him with boats; and the Bishop of Moray they
punished for harbouring him in the Castle of Spynie.¹ Yet, it may be
doubted if the confederate nobles really desired to take Bothwell;
he would have been a very dangerous prisoner in their hands. Probably
they merely wanted to drive him out of the country, and in this they
succeeded.
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 523‒525,
526‒528, 530, 531.
The plans which the party then at the head of affairs had determined
upon, rendered it necessary to treat the Queen with great severity.
They had resolved to depose her, to place the crown on her infant son,
and to appoint the Earl of Moray regent during the prince’s minority.
In the Island of Lochleven on the 23rd of July they presented two
documents to the Queen, which they requested her to subscribe; the one
was a renunciation of her crown, and the other appointed Moray to the
regency. These were hard terms for a young high-spirited princess; but
such pressure was put upon Mary that she yielded and signed the two
deeds, which were then ratified by parliament. When Queen Elizabeth
heard of the treatment which the Queen of Scots had received at
the hands of her rebellious subjects, she was extremely wroth and
threatened to inflict condign punishment upon them, but her boasting
ended in nothing. For some time after her imprisonment in Lochleven
Mary was very strictly guarded, and hardly any one was admitted to
visit her.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, pages 531‒534, 537‒541;
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., page 11,
_et seq._; Lord Lindsay’s _Lives of the Lindsays_, Volume I.,
pages 285‒287.
In the summer of 1567, the General Assembly held two meetings, and the
reformed clergy threw the whole weight of their influence on the side
of the confederate nobles. They first met at Edinburgh on the 25th
of June, George Buchanan being chosen moderator. Knox, who had been
for some time absent from the chief centre of activity, then returned
to Edinburgh; and the members of the Assembly resolved to meet again
on the 20th of July, and meantime to send letters to all the earls,
lords, barons, and other brethren, to attend upon that day. The letters
sent out to the nobles indicated the matters which it was intended to
discuss at the ensuing Assembly. The Assembly met at the appointed time.
John Row, minister of Perth, was elected moderator. The Earl of Argyle
sent in a letter to the Assembly, stating that as he had not joined the
confederate lords, who were then surrounded with an army in Edinburgh,
he could not attend the meeting of the Church; and for the same
reason Lord Boyd and the commendators of the abbacies of Arbroath and
Kilwinning refused to attend the Assembly. In the list of the nobility
present were the names of the Earls of Morton, Mar, and Glencairn; Lord
Hume, Lord Ruthven, Lord Lindsay, Lord Graham, Lord Innermaith, Lord
Ochiltree, Sir James Balfour, James M‘Gill, Tulliebardie, and a large
number of the smaller barons and lairds; but the body of the higher
nobles had as yet stood aloof from the proceedings against the Queen.
A number of articles were laid before the lords and barons who were
present, and they subscribed them. The articles were then recorded in
the Register of the Privy Council. These articles embraced a variety of
matters touching religion: the thirds of benefices, the distribution of
the patrimony of the Church, and the social state of the people. They
bore that at the first lawful Parliament the nobles and barons should
exert themselves to the utmost to establish and promote the reformed
religion within the kingdom; that Parliament must do something to
relieve and lighten the extreme burdens of the poor labourers of the
ground; that all vice, crimes, and offences against God’s law should be
severely punished according to the Scriptures; that the horrible murder
of the King, which was odious in the sight of God and the whole world,
should not be hushed up, and that the Signatories bound themselves
to punish all persons who should be found guilty of that crime. The
articles concluded――“The nobility, barons, and others of the Church
under-subscribed, in the presence of God have faithfully promised to
convene their power and forces, and then to root out, destroy, and
utterly subvert all the monuments of idolatry, namely, the odious and
blasphemous mass, and thereafter to go forward throughout the whole
kingdom, to all and sundry places wheresoever idolatry is fostered,
haunted, or maintained, and chiefly where mass is said, to execute
the reformation aforesaid, without exception of place or person; and
shall to the uttermost of their power remove all idolaters and others
that are not admitted to the ministry of the Church from all function
thereof, as well private as public, that they hinder not the ministry
in any manner of way in their vocation. And in the place of the
premises shall set up and establish the true religion of Jesus Christ
throughout this whole realm by planting churches, superintendents,
ministers, and other needful members of the Church, then the rest of
the lords shall pass through the whole country to this effect, and
also shall proceed to the punishment of idolaters according to the
laws thereupon pronounced; and in like manner they shall punish and
cause to be punished all other vices that presently abound within this
realm, which God’s law and the civil laws of the kingdom command to
be punished, and chiefly the murder of the King lately committed. And
likewise faithfully promise to reform the schools, colleges, and the
universities, and to expel and remove the idolaters that have charge
thereof, and others who as yet have not joined themselves to the true
Church of Christ, and plant faithful instructors in their places, to
the end that the youth be not infected by poisoned doctrine at the
beginning which after cannot be well removed away.”¹
¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 93‒97, 100‒103, 106‒110;
_Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 534‒537.
It is in these proceedings that we see the real spirit which animated
the reformed clergy, who had a great influence with the people; and it
was this that gave the confederate nobles success against the Queen.
Her own conduct again, was such that it was often turned against her.
But after all it is very questionable whether she would have been able
to remain upon the throne of Scotland much longer, even though her
conduct had been far more exemplary.
Her reign was characterised by many and great difficulties. There
were not merely political matters demanding wise management, but also
difficult and pressing religious and social questions, springing from
the Reformation movement. With the latter, Mary, when she came to the
throne, was not in a position to deal satisfactorily; being a Catholic
herself, to have attempted to deal with them would have been contrary
to her belief, her education, her ideas of authority, and to the
aims of the Pope, and all her Roman Catholic allies. Thus it is not
surprising that she failed to hold the reins of government in Scotland.
Many of the nobles opposed her for their own ends, and exerted
themselves to the utmost to destroy whatever influence she had among
the people; and their success was complete.
Having imprisoned and deposed the Queen, the Lords next proceeded
according to custom to place her son upon the throne. The infant King
was crowned in the parish church of Stirling on the 29th of July, 1567.
The two deeds which Mary had signed at Lochleven were publicly read,
and the Earl of Morton took the Coronation oath for the prince and
Steward of Scotland, whom the bishop of Caithness then anointed “the
most excellent Prince and King of this realm.” The proceedings were
wound up by John Knox with a sermon which he delivered in his most
vigorous style.¹ The following day the King’s authority was proclaimed;
and the reign of Queen Mary in fact and law terminated.
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 537‒543;
_Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 118‒119; _Burgh Records of
Edinburgh_, Volume III., page 238.
CHAPTER XVII.
_History of Protestantism in Scotland,
and the Conflict of the Clergy with the Government._
THUS far the revolutionary movement awakened and stirred society to
the core; but as yet the nation was much divided. On the one hand,
the Earls of Morton, Glencairn, Athole, Mar, Lord Lindsay, Lord Hume,
and others, with Moray as their leader, were supported by the reformed
clergy. On the other hand, a section of the Protestant nobles who
disapproved of the treatment of the Queen, still stood aloof and
were assuming a decided attitude; while the Roman Catholic party were
constantly active and looking for their opportunity. On all sides the
elements of conflict were apparent.
On the 11th of August, 1567, the Earl of Moray, who had been recalled
from France by his party, arrived in Edinburgh. After conferring with
his friends, he consented to accept the regency, but before formally
assuming the office, he wished to have an interview with the Queen. He
was accompanied to Lochleven, by Morton, Athole, and Lord Lindsay; but
the Queen naturally desired to see her brother alone, and her request
was granted. What passed between them, is rather hard to ascertain.
It has been reported that he reproached her for her conduct in the
severest manner, that the Queen was extremely afflicted, and that after
a long interview he left her to ponder over what he had said. Next
morning the Queen and Moray again met. There was more sympathy between
them; and at the Queen’s request Moray agreed to accept the regency.¹
¹ Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, pages 193‒194; Hosack’s
_Queen Mary_, Volume I., pages 373‒375.
On the 22nd of August, Moray formally assumed office in the Tolbooth
of Edinburgh, and having taken the oath required by the constitution,
was proclaimed Regent. The following day the Council issued an order
calling in all the seals, that they might be broken and destroyed, and
new ones made with a legend appropriate to James VI.¹ The new Regent
exerted himself to the utmost to restore order and administer justice
in the nation. He commanded the leading men of the Merse to appear
before the Council on the last day of August to concert measures
for the quiet administration of justice within the East March. The
Hamiltons offered some opposition to his authority within their
territories, but it was easily overcome. Moray’s next aim was to get
possession of the castle of Edinburgh. The Governor, Sir James Balfour,
was bought over by a bribe, and the castle was then committed to Sir
William Kirkaldy the laird of Grange. The Regent also struggled hard
for the castle of Dunbar, and it fell into his hands about the end of
September. The castle of Dumbarton, however, still held out for the
Queen. Orders were issued for the surrender of many other castles; and
great efforts were made to establish peace and order throughout the
kingdom.²
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 548‒551.
² _Ibid._, Volume I., pages 551‒576; Stevenson’s _Selections_,
pages 283, 291‒294.
Moray summoned a parliament which met at Edinburgh in December, 1567,
“to treat on the affairs tending to the glory of God, the setting forth
of the King’s authority, and for establishing good and necessary laws
in the kingdom.” This parliament ratified the most important steps of
the Reformation. The acts passed in 1560 which had never received the
royal assent, were confirmed, and the Confession of Faith was inserted
in the record of the parliamentary proceedings.¹ Henceforward the great
revolution which had substituted Protestantism for Romanism in Scotland
may be regarded as secured; though there were still many weighty and
interesting matters relating to the polity and rights of the reformed
Church, and the claims of her clergy, remaining to be settled, which
afterwards led to a protracted struggle with the Crown.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
3‒45.
The General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 25th of December, 1567.
All the members present agreed to a proposition that a certain number
of ministers should be appointed to meet at any time with such members
of parliament or of the Privy Council as the Regent should name, as
a committee to advise on the affairs of the Church.¹ The reformed
Church gave the Regent a firm and undivided support; and his government
required all their aid. It was said that he took great trouble to
pounce upon the thieves and vagabonds who distressed the people, and
held courts of justice throughout the country; but that he took no
such care to settle the differences and whims of the nobility, and thus
failed to draw them into obedience to the King. For all the Regent’s
energy and the success of his government, the army still required to
be kept in the field. On the 14th of February, 1568, the lead on the
cathedral churches of Aberdeen and Elgin, part of which had already
been stolen, was ordered to be stripped off and sold, and the proceeds
applied to maintain the King’s troops.² The Queen’s party continued
exceedingly active. A considerable section of the people were still
dissatisfied, and the Regent was often warned that trouble was brewing.
¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, page 113.
² Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, pages 198‒199; _Register of
the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 599, 608‒614.
In the beginning of May, 1568, the Queen escaped from her imprisonment
in Lochleven, and proceeded to Hamilton. Her chief adherents were
the Earls of Argyle, Huntly, Rothes, Cassillis; the Lords Harris,
Livingston, Fleming, and Claud Hamilton.¹ In a few days she was at
the head of a force of four or five thousand armed men. When the
intelligence of Mary’s escape reached him, the Regent was at Glasgow
holding justice courts. On the 3rd of May he ordered a muster of all
the Crown vassals, for the preservation of the King’s authority and
person, and for establishing justice and peace in the kingdom. He
resolved at once to meet the danger, and marching out of Glasgow, took
up a position at Langside. On the 13th of May the followers of the
Queen gave him battle. His victory was complete, and Mary herself fled
towards the Border;² and in an unhappy hour determined to throw herself
upon the hospitality of the Queen of England.
¹ Keith, Volume II., pages 797‒799.
² _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 620‒622.
After the flight of the Queen, the Regent continued his efforts to
restore order in the kingdom. This was no easy task. He had a host of
enemies, and was always making more, for the peculiar position into
which he had allowed himself to be put, necessarily multiplied his foes.
When parliament was summoned to meet in July, 1568, the keenness of the
struggle was intensified as soon as it became known that the enemies
of the Regent’s government would be subjected to forfeiture. The
Archbishop of St. Andrews was cited to appear before the Council, and
having failed to appear, was declared a rebel and outlawed. The Earl
of Crawford and others were also proclaimed rebels. Parliament met at
the appointed time, but it was immediately adjourned to August, when
proceedings of forfeiture were to be begun against the opponents of the
government. From motives of policy, however, only a few were condemned,
and hopes were held out to others, with the view of inducing them to
submit.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 624‒634,
638; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III.,
pages 47‒58.
The General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 1st of July, 1568. John
Willock was chosen moderator, and the members proceeded to the business
before them. They presented a number of articles to the Regent and
craved reform of abuses. Among other things they complained that
their stipends were not fully paid; and requested that the College of
Aberdeen should be reformed, the corrupted office-bearers removed and
others appointed in their places, so that the youth might be instructed
in letters and godliness. They desired the Regent to adopt measures
for the suppression of vice, that the plague of God might thereby be
withdrawn from the nation. The Regent listened with respect to their
requests and returned a favourable answer. This Assembly resolved that
all the Catholics, who after due admonition refused to join themselves
to the Reformed Church, should be cast out of the society of Christ’s
body and excommunicated. But the Assembly which met in February the
following year, presented to the Regent a series of similar articles
praying that remedies might be adopted; and in reference to the
Regent’s former proposal touching vice and crime, they added――“If his
grace send us to the Justice-Clerk, experience has sufficiently taught
us what he has done in any such matters.”¹ They meant that he had done
nothing at all.
¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 123, 126‒129, 139, 140.
In the end of September, 1568, the Regent, accompanied by the Earl
of Morton, Lord Lindsay, and other leading men of his party, passed
to England to attend the conference at York touching Queen Mary. But
it does not fall within the scope of my work to follow the story of
that unhappy Queen after her flight to England; although it has been
intensely interesting to some minds, it is not sufficiently important
in its bearing upon the main subject to justify its introduction.¹
¹ This matter is treated in the histories of Tytler and Burton,
very fully in Hosack’s _Queen Mary_, and in many other works
which need not be enumerated.
When the Regent returned from England in the beginning of February 1569,
he found his position in Scotland to be one of extreme difficulty. In
the interval the Queen’s party had become more powerful and restless,
and were employing every means in their power to harass his government
and the unhappy people. Moray continued to act with energy, but some
of his supporters deserted, and his enemies multiplied. Maitland of
Lethington, who had fallen under the suspicion of the Regent, joined
the Laird of Grange, the governor of the Castle of Edinburgh. Both of
them threw in their lot with the cause of Mary, and thus the strongest
and most important fortress in the kingdom passed into the hands of her
party. It was mainly owing to this circumstance that the supporters of
the Queen were able to hold out so long in Scotland. The other centres
of her party were Huntly and the Gordons in the north, the Hamiltons
and Argyle in the west, and some of the border clans. Thus hemmed in
and hard pressed on every side, the Regent struggled on, and if his
career had not been cut short, he would in all probability, with the
assistance of the money of England, have overcome his enemies; but
in the beginning of the year 1570, as the castle of Edinburgh was in
the hands of the Queen’s adherents, he set out for Stirling; and on
the 13th of January, when returning through Linlithgow, he was shot by
Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh. The bullet passed through his body, and he
died in a few hours. The assassin escaped on a fleet horse and rode to
Hamilton Castle. Moray’s death was bewailed by the people and by the
reformed clergy, who both regarded him as the arm of their safety.¹
To the party of the young King Moray’s death was a severe blow. He was
an unscrupulous man, and his character will not bear close inspection;
but he had great energy and some of the qualifications of a successful
ruler; and with such means as he could command, he struggled bravely
and worthily to maintain order and to administer justice.