Читать книгу Mary Queen of Scots in History - C. A. Campbell - Страница 6

Table of Contents

No tale of romance possesses a more lasting charm than does the simple history of Mary Stewart, Queen of Scots. Since the day on which Sir Ralph Sadler, Ambassador of Queen Elizabeth, was privileged to see her in the nursery at Linlithgow, and pronounced her a "right fair and goodly child," every fresh contribution to her history has been welcomed with unparalleled eagerness. Nor is there any indication that her life-story will lose its fascination with the lapse of time. Scarcely a year passes away that does not see a considerable addition made to the already ponderous store of Mary-Stewart literature. Nevertheless, very many even of her admirers have, to say the least, an inadequate knowledge of her life. They know her only as a heroine of romance, or as a pious widow, kneeling in devotion with the Rosary hanging at her girdle, or as a cheerful martyr resigning her head to the block; and they forget that for seven years she reigned over the most turbulent nation of Europe, that she opened and closed parliament, deliberated in the Council Chamber, led armies to the field, that, in a word, she lived a most real and stirring life.

I confess it is no easy task to present a complete and, at the same time, correct picture of her career. The difficulty is owing to the large amount of matter, written in different and contradictory spirits, with which some of the most important events of her life have been obscured. Religion, politics, patriotism, avarice, personal friendships and hatreds, either conjointly or individually, determined the actions of those who had part in framing the history of the period. It becomes necessary, therefore, to learn how far the men on whose testimony, or from whose conduct, we have to pass judgment on certain incidents in Mary's life, were influenced by one or other of these motives.

Mary Queen of Scots was born in Linlithgow Palace, in Scotland, on the 8th of December, 1542. The condition of Scotland at the time was sad and evil-boding. Her father, the well-beloved James V., was at Falkland, dying of a broken heart, in consequence of the humiliating conduct of the disaffected Scottish nobles at Solway Moss. When told that a daughter had been born to him at Linlithgow, he gave no sign of pleasure, but sadly said, "God's will be done." Then, his memory reverting to the person through whom the Stewarts had ascended the throne of Scotland, he added, "It (the crown) came with a lass and it will go with a lass." He died shortly after, in the thirty-first year of his age, leaving to his distracted country an infant queen, only six days old.

The care of the young queen devolved on her mother, Mary of Lorraine, a lady of the famous French house of Guise. Did the scope of the present sketch but sanction the digression, I should be pleased to dwell a little on the character of this distinguished woman, whose memory some historians have, according to their custom, endeavoured to blacken, but who stands out in the judgment of the best historians of every creed as a generous, forgiving and heroic woman, who conscientiously defended the rights of her daughter and maintained the laws of Scotland, until an edifying and pathetic death withdrew her from the troubled scenes in which the years of her widowhood had been passed.

It is the privilege, or perhaps the misfortune, of rulers, that their marriage is one of the first things that engage the attention of their people; and while the nursery was disturbed by the cries of the infant queen, the councils of England and Scotland were agitated with the question of her marriage. Henry VIII., of England, had an infant son, Edward, afterwards Edward VI., for whom he wished to secure from the Scottish parliament a solemn promise of marriage with the young Queen of Scots. As might be presumed, it was not so much the desire of cultivating the friendship of his northern neighbours that actuated the English monarch, as the hope of accomplishing, by means of a marriage, what his predecessors had failed to accomplish by means of the sword, the subjugation of the Scottish kingdom. To have a clear conception of the political relations between the two countries, and to understand the foundation of the English claims, it will be necessary to take a retrospective glance at the history of Scotland.

In 844, the Scots of Dalriada and various Pictish races became united under King Kenneth McAlpine. During the reign of Malcolm I., who ascended the throne of Alban a hundred years later, the district of Cumberland was, by Edmund of England, made over to the King of Scotland, on condition that the latter should, in return, render him certain assistance in time of war. The acquisition of other districts fronting the Scottish border was subsequently made, in return for offered assistance against the common enemy--the Danes. But the annexation of Cumberland was the principal source of the endless conflicts between the sister kingdoms, until the union of the crowns under James VI. For those possessions which he had acquired within the kingdom of England, the Scottish king was obliged to pay homage to his neighbouring monarch. In the course of time, however, the English Kings began to claim that the homage they received from Scotland was for the entire Scottish kingdom, as well as for the Scottish possessions within the English borders. This the Scots denied, protesting that, while paying homage for the English border lands which they had acquired, they were a free and independent people. Such a state of affairs may seem strange to us, but it was nothing uncommon in those feudal times. William the Conqueror, for instance, although independent sovereign of England, paid homage to the King of France for the dukedom of Normandy, which he held within French territory.

In those circumstances, any English king who might desire to make war against Scotland could always put forward the old claim as a plea for his action. Unfortunately, the Scottish parliament, in order to secure the release of their King, William the Lion, on one occasion acknowledged the English claim of suzerainty. A few years later, however, Richard the Lion-hearted renounced the English claim, on payment by Scotland of a certain sum of money, which that chivalrous crusader needed to defray the expenses of his expedition to the Holy Land. The country remained independent for about one hundred years; then disputes concerning the rightful successor to Alexander III. having disunited and weakened the Scottish people, Edward I. found the time opportune for renewing the old claim. Twelve competitors for the throne appeared in the field, who, being not altogether averse to sacrificing national honour to personal advantage, were willing to acknowledge the supremacy of England, in order to win the invaluable influence of Edward for their respective causes. The principal claimants were Robert Bruce--not the great Bruce--and John Baliol. Edward decided in favour of Baliol, who forthwith ascended the throne as vassal of England. But the Scottish lion was soon aroused by the encroachments of Edward, and Baliol was forced to disclaim allegiance to his patron. Entering into a league with France, he began to prepare for the invasion of England. (This was the beginning of the long-continued friendship between Scotland and France, which completely died out only with the death of the Stewart cause.) But Scotland was not prepared to cope with the haughty Longshanks, and it was reduced to the condition of a province of England. This could not endure long. Disunion, and not lack of national valour, had opened the way to defeat. A leader only was needed, and a leader soon arose in the person of William Wallace, the soldier and hero-patriot. Although Wallace, after having driven the English out of his country, did not succeed in establishing her independence on a lasting basis, nevertheless his achievements were not vain; he had aroused his countrymen to action, and his patriotic conduct before the English judges in Westminster Hall, could not fail to open the eyes of certain Scottish nobles who, from motives of self-interest, had accepted the foreign rule, to a realization of their dishonourable position. When accused of being a traitor to King Edward, Wallace replied: "I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject."

Scarcely had death struck the torch of patriotism from the hand of Wallace, when it was caught up by a worthy successor, who had learned bravery by the side of Wallace himself. Robert Bruce was the person whom Providence had destined, not merely to defeat the enemies of his country on the field of battle, but also to unite and consolidate his kingdom and to cause it to be once more recognized as free and independent. David II., son and successor of the great liberator, died without issue, and thus the male line of the Bruce family became extinct. But the nation, being strongly attached to the memory of their deliverer, called to the throne his descendant through the female line. Bruce's daughter, Marjory, had married the Lord High Steward of Scotland, and had a son, Robert. Marjory Bruce was the "lass" to whom James V. made reference on his death-bed; and her son, who in 1370 ascended the throne as Robert II., was the first of that long, celebrated, and unfortunate line of Stewart monarchs. Brave, witty, rash, affable, obstinate, magnanimous, they exhibit a character in which all the qualities that make men beloved, and nearly all that make men great, are perversely blended with many frailties and follies. Besides, some remorseless genius would seem to have presided over their lives and to have ingeniously contrived to make their miseries greater, and their lives more pitiable, by leading them into full view of prosperity and glory before it struck them to the earth. The good Robert III. died of sorrow at the misfortune of his sons; James I., the brave, learned and wise monarch, died under the murderer's steel; James II. was killed by the bursting of a cannon; James III., thrown from his horse and wounded, was stabbed to death by an assassin; James IV., the pride and darling of the nation, fell, sword in hand, on a disastrous field of battle; James V. died of a broken heart, and that, too, like his predecessors, in the blossom of his manhood; Mary (if I be permitted to anticipate), died at the block, the victim of politico-religious utilitarianism and her cousin's jealousy; and Charles I. died at the block, the victim of a military despotism.

During these centuries successive regal minorities afforded the nobles, at all times powerful and turbulent, ample opportunity of increasing their power, until it became a standing menace to the throne. James IV., besides his other good works for the welfare of his people, did much towards reducing the power of the nobles and centralizing authority in the crown. But the progress of the country received a sudden check, and the bright career of the King was brought to a mournful close, by an event that did for Scotland, on the eve of the Reformation, what the Wars of the Roses had already done for England--deprived it of its best and bravest nobles. James' rash invasion of England ended in the doleful battle of Flodden, which robbed Scotland of her king and almost of her independence. There is, however, one feature in that sad event which is pleasing to contemplate; it was the last great battle in which a united Scotland stood with unwavering fidelity around its monarch.

By the time Mary Stewart saw the light, an unexpected element of disunion had been introduced into the national life. The religious revolution of the sixteenth century, commonly called the Reformation, had been spreading in the cities and towns of the kingdom. Already in England Henry VIII. had enriched the throne, and the greedy nobles had enriched themselves, from the spoils of churches and monasteries. By his breach with Rome, Henry had made himself an enemy to the Catholic powers, and it was important that he should strengthen his position by drawing Scotland out of its old alliance with France, and bringing it into friendship with himself. But this he could not do while Scotland remained Catholic. The title of "Defender of the Faith," which, by his rebellion against the Pope, Henry had forfeited, but which, strange to say, neither he nor his successors have ever relinquished, was conferred on James V. of Scotland in 1537. In 1540 Henry sent his wily envoy, Sir Ralph Sadler, to bring the refractory young James to his own way of thinking. Sadler came with his plan of temptation so skilfully arranged, that one would believe him fresh from the study of the fourth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel.

First, he appealed to the vanity of the young King, representing to him that if he yielded to Henry's wishes, he would become independent of all external authority. But the device failed, and Sadler was forced to inform his master, that James continued in his persuasion that the "Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ."

He next attempted to gain the Scottish King through avarice. He pointed out the wealth of the monasteries, which could be appropriated to the uses of the crown, as it had been in England. James assured him there was no need of that, for the "Kirkmen would give him all he wanted." Finally, Sadler reminded him that Henry was "stricken in years" and that by showing consideration for his uncle's wishes, James might be named his successor, and one day rule over the whole island. Yet the young northern king did not fall down and adore, but merely answered that he wished his uncle many years of life on the English throne; as for himself, he added, he was happy among his own people, and had no desire to extend his dominions.

Not all the Scottish nobles followed the example of their monarch. Across the border they could see the English nobles enriching themselves from Church property, and it was not clear to them why they should not go and do likewise. Accordingly, a number of them became remarkably industrious in the cause of the new religion, their zeal for the house of God being nowise abated by the unprecedented wealth it brought to their own house. We should greatly err, however, if we thought the avarice of the nobles of itself could have made the change of religion possible. The truth is, the state of Religion in Scotland, at that time, was not flourishing, and the country offered a good field for the growth and spread of religious innovation. The long peace from external foes which the Church had enjoyed was the occasion of a relaxation of discipline, and of a widespread indifference to the full observance of religious duties. The custom of appointing lay abbots, called Commendatory Abbots, to the charge of the temporalities of monasteries, was another evil. This office was frequently controlled by powerful lords, who had their own sons appointed thereto, not on account of their virtue or their learning, but just because they were scions of noble houses who had to be provided for. But what made the way smoothest for the "Reformers" was the ignorance of the people in matters of Christian doctrine. The wars in which the country had been for centuries engaged, had left little or no time for the cultivation of the arts of peace, except within the monasteries. Had the people been properly instructed in their religion, the work of the "Reformers" would have made but little headway in Scotland. A Reformation in the true sense--a recalling of the people, high and low, to the practice of their religious duties--was necessary; new creeds were not necessary. But the true Reformation began too late; in the meantime there came a revolution in which the religious fabric of centuries was overthrown, and a new profession of faith, gotten up in a few days by a committee of divines, was adopted by Act of Parliament. The monasteries and churches, which vied in point of richness and architectural beauty with the best on the Continent, were plundered and demolished. Voluminous libraries, containing, together with the works of the Ancients and the writings of the Church Fathers, precious manuscript histories of Scottish institutions, were made the fuel of bonfires; and the treasures of sculpture and painting, which had been accumulating for centuries, and in which men's religious hopes and fears were depicted by the Master artists of Medieval times, were hurled from their pedestals or consigned to the flames. While the frenzy lasted, the national loss was not considered. But cool heads soon began to deplore the wanton destruction which robbed the country of so many monuments, the history of which was interwoven with the history of Scottish patriots and heroic achievements. And in truth what true Scotsman, whatever his religious tenets, but deplores the demolition of such venerable piles as Melrose Abbey, Kelso, Scone? or who but would feel the noblest emotions of his nature awakened could he now approach the High Altar of Cambuskenneth's shrine, before which, when Scotland lay prostrate at the feet of the conqueror, the brave associates of Bruce knelt and vowed the deliverance of their country? But we must return to Mary.