MASS. 
 
 I '.\TH01IC 
 
 BOSTON". 
 
MAKY QUEEN OF SCOTiS 
 
 AKD 
 
 HER LATEST ENGLISH HISTORIAN. 
 
 A NARRATIVE OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN 
 THE LIFE OF MARY STUART; WITH 
 SOME REMARKS ON MR. FROUDE'S 
 HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES F. MELINE. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 THE CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 
 
 9 Warren Street. 
 1871. 
 
 9 23 .1 
 
DA 
 
 MS 
 l?7/ 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, bj 
 
 James F. Meline, 
 in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
 MAR I "7 1989 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Popularity of Mr, Fronde's History. — Impartiality difficult. — Char- 
 acteristics of Karlier Volumes. — Treatmetit of Henry and Eliza- 
 beth.— >ome Defects. — His Method. — Psychological School. — 
 A few Liberties 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 History of Sixteenth Century. — Mr. Froude's Knowledge of it. — 
 The Cobliam Case. — Peine Forte et Dure. — An Instance. — 
 Torture and the Hack. — Rack busy under Elizabeth. — Torture 
 approved. — Seiilimcntality. — I homas More. — Katherine of Ar- 
 agon. — Anne IJoleyn. — Faint Priise. — Insinuation. — A Damag- 
 ing Review. — Kea>oMs for .Judicial Murder. — Optimist or Pessi- 
 niistV — Our Ntible Hal. — Poor Laws. — The Inevitable. — 
 Thomas ( Iromweil. — People who lose their Wav.— Henry s Wives. 
 
 — Mortality explained. — Case altered. — Fatal Necessity of Mis- 
 take. — An Indictment .11 
 
 CH.APTER in. 
 
 An Early Departure — Clever Device. — Sentimentality. — A Perfect 
 Child. — Suppression. — Birth, Parentage, and Education. — A very 
 Little One. — Court of Catherine de Medicis. — Mary Stuart never 
 there. — True Position of Catlierine. — Testimony of French His- 
 torians. — Mary Stuart's Dependence. — Deep Plotting . . 22 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Mary's Educa'ion. — Marriage. — Her Health. — "Sir. Fr uide's Views. 
 — Sensual and Devihsh — Annoying Ambassador. — Candid State- 
 ment. — Mary's Prec ocious Politics. — A Young Girl's daft and 
 Deceit. — Elizabeth refuses Safe Conduct. — Mary embarks for 
 Scot and. — Sentimentality vs. Business. — Something well done. 
 
 — James Stewart. — His Duplicity 30 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Arrival in Scotland. — The Situation — Scotch Nobles. — Mary's First 
 Public Act. — Interview with John Knox. — St. Paul. — Relent- 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1 
 
iv 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 less Big-otry. — How to hide a Purpose. — Another Knox Interview. 
 
 — Mr. Hosack's Work. — Broken Heads and Bloody Ears. — Relig- 
 ious Toleration. — Knox's Denunciations. — Air Drawn Crowns. 
 
 — Lesson in History. — Reading Secret Thoughts. — Earl of Hunt- 
 
 ly. — Elizabeth. —Murray's Power 40 
 
 CHAPTER VL 
 
 Quotation Marks. — John Knox's Sermon. — A Fancy Sketch. — Vio- 
 lent Weeping. — Admirable Actress. — A Failure. — Knox and Mur- 
 ray fall out. — The Cause. — Spell of Enchantress. — John Knox 
 ► looks through a Person. — Cleopatra Tableau. — Queen's Personal 
 
 Habits. — Graceful Self-indulgence. — Proofs of same . . 54 
 
 CHAPTER VIL 
 
 David Riccio.— Purism. — Moray or Murray ? — Both well.— Splendid 
 Passage. — Murray's Conduct. — Historian maltreats his Friends. — 
 Suitors for Mary's Hand. — Tone of Philosophic Historian. — The 
 Worthless Leicester. — Plot to imprison Mary. — She marries 
 Lord Darnley. — Tumultuous working of Imagination. — Catholic 
 League. — Question of Toleration. — Question of Sincerity. — Mr. 
 Fronde's Trouble. — Uncertain Twilight. — A Silly Story. — Hear- 
 sa}'. — Murray's Insurrection. — Murrny's Head. — What Mary 
 said. — Mr. Froude's Record not recorded. — What is Treason? — 
 Rebellion crushed. — Eyes that glare, glitter, and flash. — What a 
 Wonderful History! 62 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Mr. Froude explains. — Randolph Letter non est. — Substitute of- 
 fered. — Bedford Letter. — It has not the Words cited. — Singular 
 Appeal to Prejudice. — Who wrote " She said she could have no 
 Peace? " — Where does Mr. Froude obtain it? — History or Ro- 
 mance. — Randolph about the Court. — " In connection with Bed- 
 ford." — Who was Bedford ? — Travestie of History. — Apprecia- 
 tion of Difficulty. — Bedford Letter. — Certified Copy. — Imagina- 
 tive Historian 77 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Murray and Elizabeth. — Unwelcome Guest. — Randolph. — Trea- 
 sonable Practices. — Bags of Specie. — Lady Murray. — Roseate 
 Sketch. — Randolph dismi-sed. — His Character. — Elizabeth. — 
 What she swears to. — Admirable Actress — Court Comedy. — 
 Christian Regina Cceli. — The Deadly Coil. — Bond for the Slaugh- 
 ter. — A Swift Messenger. — Conventional Forms. — Objects of 
 the Plot. — General Fast. — John Knox. — Historical Verdict . 90 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 V 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Murder of Riccio. — Assassin Hero. — Murderer's Testimony. — Will 
 be known hereafter. — Literary Work-bench. — IIow Mr. Fromle 
 manufactures Evidence. — Mosaic of Malice. — Threat of ]\Iunler. 
 
 — Posthumous Prophecy. — One Correct Statement. — Festive His- 
 torian cages a IJird. — Snakes, Birds, and Panthers. — Lamblike 
 Lords — Mary's Death provided for. — Appalling Wickedness. — 
 Wile elopes with Husband. — The Man just over the Border. — 
 " Free and Generous Nature " votes for his Sister's Death. — Mary 
 escapes. — Inconsolable Historian. — Executes Fantasia with " In- 
 creclible Animosity." — Awa}^, Away! — Mary does not write a 
 Letter. — Picturesque Insanity. — Letter to Elizabeth. — Inventive 
 Historian. — Must History continue to be written in this Way? — 
 Munler of Black. — Invention and Fact. — Official Record. — 
 Letter of Bishop of Norwich to Bullinger 98 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 Murray all Powerful. — Jedburgh. — Story of the Queen's Ride. — 
 Buchanan, Robertson, and Froude. — Botliwell and John Elliott. — 
 Desperate Fight. — Elliott slain. — Only " a Scuffle." — Thieves in 
 Elizabeth's Pay. — How History is written. — Garbled Citation. — 
 Bothwell's Character. — Alloa Story? — A Letter. — Darnlej^'s Fear 
 of the Lords. — Prurient Insolence. — The Queen's Retinue. — Dy- 
 ing Bfd. — Craigmillar. —A Dark Suggestion. — Inverted Commas. 
 
 — Infeli 'itous Translation. — Hard of Hearing. — Murray's Posi- 
 tion. — His Declaration. — Suggestion as to Darnley. — Mary's Last 
 Will.— A Bond. — Historian's Duty. — Belief with the Will. — :\Ir. 
 Fronde's Dilemma. — Three Inventions. — Baptism of Prince. — 
 Pardon of Riccio Murderers. — Darnley dreads Morton's Return . 112 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Blunder and Invention. — Popish Ceremony. — Lords and Ladies. — 
 Curious Infelicity. — Desperation. — Feared for his Life. — Darnley 
 leaves Caurt. — His " Wrongs." — Lennox neglected. — Marj' to 
 blame. — Plots and Pardons. — Poor Boy ! — Humanity vs Cruel- 
 ty. — Darnley's Character. — His Conduct. — Queen's Unhappi- 
 ness. — A Storv about Poison. — How proved. — Cato the Censor. 
 
 — Said it was Small-pox. — Bothwell Scandal. — Contemporary 
 Evidence. — Is there any? — Reporters and Spies. — Queen's 
 Household. — Queen's High Standing. — Morton returns. — Both- 
 well and Maitland. — Plot to murder Darnley. — Warrant tor his 
 Arrest. — Queeh refuses to sign. — Spies and Tale Bearers. — 
 George Douglas. — Morton's Participation. — Queen's Letter. — 
 Not Clever.— Letters to Darnley. — Visits Darnley. — Her Bearing. 
 
 — Conduct of Darnley. — His Declaration. — Crawford and Mr. 
 Froude. — Darnley's House 132 
 
vi 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Certainties of History. — Philosopliical Reflections. — Mary goes to 
 Glat^gowr. — Callander. — t'ravvt'urd. — Whose Envoy ? — Rewards 
 of .Merit.— Fantastic Sltetch.— l'sycholo<;y.— Odd Glitter.— Skil- 
 ful riayer. — The Casket-letters. — Over iiasty. — Promise broken. 
 
 — Flace and I'lan. — Darnley goes to Edinoiirgh. — Nelson's Dep- 
 osition. — An Early Supper. — A (irand l}ani[Liet. — Clernault's 
 Letter. — Murder of iJamley. — Fur Wrapper and I'ifty-ninth 
 Psahn. — Threat of Revenge. — Wlio is Caklerwood? — Correct 
 Citation. — A Sound Sleep. — Summing up. — Scottish Lords. — 
 Queen's Advisors. — Placards. — Proclamation. — Warning from 
 Paris. — Murray's Absence. — Lennox sent for. — Spanish Coldness. 
 
 — The Cause. — A Mystery. — Reports as to the Murder . . 
 
 CHAPTER XIV.' 
 
 Crawford's Testimony. — Tallies exactly. — Coincidence explained. — 
 Device of Forger. — Powerful Reasoning. — An Invincible Argu- 
 ment. — Overwh' Iming Exactness. — Deposition of Paris. — How 
 taken. — Why not used. — lucon-istencies. — Contradicted b}' Mur- 
 ray's Diary. — How was Darnley killed V — Blown up or stran- 
 gled? — Ihree Plots. — Contemporary Testimony. — Darnley's 
 Papers. — Mr. Caird's Book. — Motives of Murderers. — Murray's 
 Absence. — His Knowledge of the Plot. — Unable to interfere. — 
 Dying Depositions. — The Witnesses. — They accuse the Lords. — > 
 Leslie's Challenge. — Other Testimon}^ 157 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Killigrew searches the Truth. — Dines with Darnley's Murderers. — 
 Murray pretends to search. — The Clique. — Killigrew Letter. — 
 Two Versions — Suspicions but no Proof. — Atmosphere of False- 
 hood. — Queen's Seclusion. — Seton. — Drurv's Discovery. — 
 Mar}?- desires to go to France. — Murray. — He leaves Scotland. 
 
 — His Last Will. — Bothwell's Trial. — English Marshal's Report. 
 
 — A Remarkable Photograph. — Mr. Fronde's Coloring. — Both- 
 well's Judges. — The Parliament. — Murray cared for . . 172 
 
 CHAPTER XVL 
 
 Ainslie Bond. — No Supper. — Bothwell's Marriage with Queen rec- 
 ommended by the Nobles. — Did Murrav sign ? — Foreign Guard. 
 
 — Literary Manipulation. — How Mother tried to poison her Child. 
 
 — Mary's Abduction. — Dunbar. — Sir James Melville. — His 
 Account. — Testimon}'. — The Outrage. — Marriage. — One Honest 
 Man. — The Queen's Despair. — Mary's Letter. — Cool Presump- 
 tion. — More Manipulation 184 
 
 / 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 vii 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Fresh I'lot of the Lords. — The Rising. — Carberry. — Bothweil's 
 Flight. — Mary goes to the. Camp ot" the Lords. — They profess 
 Allegiance and Respect. — Horrible Scene. — Brutal Conduct. — A 
 Letter which was not written. — Camden's Testimony. — Arrest of 
 Captain Cullen. — His Disclosures. — How Dariiley was killed. — 
 Culltrn strangled. — Queen at Lochleven. — Crai^millar Bond. — 
 Baliour bribed. — Murray's Administration rewards Darniey's 
 Murderers. — Dares not touch them. — Silver-casktt Letters. — 
 Popular Hatred of Murray. —Mary escapes from Loclileven. — 
 The Protestant Nubility. — The Armies. — Figlit at Langside. — 
 Mr. Froude's Keapers. — Mary trusts to Elizabeth . . . 195 
 
 CHAPTER XVIIL 
 
 The Casket-letters. — Opinions and Authorities. — How their Au- 
 thenticity is discussed. — Historian weaves the Tainted Papers. 
 
 — Desultory Muttering. — Genius of Shakespeare. — External 
 History. — Pretended Discovery. — Absence of Contemporary Ev- 
 idence. — Casket not heard of till after Death of Dalgleish. — 
 Further Proof. — Balfour and Morton. — Forgery explained. — 
 Bothwell. — Morton and Murray. — The Juggling Box. — Some 
 Casket recovered. — Bothweil's Thoughts read. — Another Casket 
 Appear -nee. — Robert Houdin. — What Ballbur really found. — 
 Oil on Fire. — Pure Invention. — Internal Evidence. — Scotcli and 
 French Versions. — Buchanan's "Detection." — Cecil's Certificate 209 
 
 CFIAPTER XIX. 
 
 After Carberry. — Maitland's Description. — Pulpit on the Queen. — 
 Lords and General Assembly. — John Knox. — Candid Opinion. 
 
 — No Attempt to arrest Bothwell. — Casket-letters not seen in 
 Scotland. — Absurd Pretense of Acquaintance with jMoti^ es. — 
 Mary Stuart's Partisans sternly rebuked. — Murray's Conduct to 
 Mary. — Mr. Froude's Mild Statement. — Murray is Pious. — But 
 loves Mone}'. — French Pension. — The Brutal Lindsay. — Three 
 Sheets of Paper. — Spanish Authority. — Accurate Description. — 
 
 A Late Discovery. — De Silva's Letter. — Research at Simancas , 223 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 Historian touches Exact Spot. — Complicity of Cecil and Elizabeth 
 in the Murder. — Elizabeth's Conduct on Arrest of 3Iorton. — 
 Blasphemous Balfour. — His Threatening Letter. — The (Queen's 
 Jewels — Murray sells his Sister's Pearls — Lady Murray. — 
 Forced to surrender Plunder. — Maitlaiid, Kirkaldy, and Morton. 
 
 — Picture of Morton. — Sells Earl of Westmoreland to Elizabeth. 
 
 — Mr. Froude's Account 233 
 
viii 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP TER XXI. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Cecil the Statesman. — Pro Regina Scotoruin. — Conference at 
 York. — Murray's Device. — Asks Promise to decide in his Favor. 
 — Casket-l&tters. — Shows Scotch Copies secretly. — Shows Copies 
 as Ori<;iiials. — Mr. Froude's Invention. — Duke of Norfolk. — 
 Mak Guid Watch. —Two Letters disappear. — Duke of Sussex. — 
 What he wrote. — The Froude Version. — Suppression and In- 
 vention. — Murray's Companions 242 
 
 CHAPTER XXIL 
 
 PART FIRST. 
 
 Scottish Queen demands to be heard in Person. — Her Commission- 
 ers. — Her Declaration. — Elizabeth Declines. — Murray's Accusa- 
 tion. — Mary's Intent to murder her Child. — Elizabeth doubts 
 Strength of Murraj-'s Case. — Mary's Protest. — Cecil's Trick. — 
 Murray proceeds in Absence of Mary's Commissioners. — Book of 
 Articles. — Unwilling to produce Casket. — Produces it. — Mor- 
 ton certifies it. — Nature of the Examination. — Protest of Mary's 
 Commissioners. — Accomplished Experts. — Cecil's Minutes. — 
 Letters showed " b}"- Hap." — Keenest Scrutiny. — English Com- 
 missioners hold back. — Cecil Furious. — Mary in a Distant Prison. 
 — Her Protest. — Accuses Murray and the Lords. — Demands 
 Copies of the Letters. — Repeated Demand for Copies. — Eliza- 
 beth. — Admirable Actress ... .... 251 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 Mary again demands Copies. — Offers to prove Forgery of the Let- 
 ters. — Elizabeth promises Copies. — Promises again. — Again 
 Admirable Actress. — Cunning Plot to persuade Mary to abdi- 
 cate.— Its Details. — How it succeeded. — Will die a Queen of 
 Scotland. — Decision of Commissioners on Letters. — Casket 
 Proofs dismissed as Insufiicient. — Another Demand for Copies. — 
 Murray returns to Scotland. — Takes Box and £5,000. — Copies 
 again demanded. — No Result. — At Mary's Request, French Am- 
 bassador applies for Copies. — Again promised. — But not fur- 
 nished. — Elizabeth flies in a Passion. — Reaction iu Favor of 
 Mary 260 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 Mary's Letter to Elizabeth. — Lady Livingstone. — Scottish Ladies 
 offer to share Mary's Captivity. — Proposition to Mary. — To 
 marry Norfolk. — To be recognized as Heir Apparent. — Mary's 
 Innocence. — We are shown what passes in her Mind. — Asks 
 for Bread and is given a Stone. — Her Prison Life. — Mr. Froude's 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Broad Charity. — Outbursts of Truest Pathos. — False in one false 
 in all 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 Scotland on Murray's Return, — Kirkaldy of Grange. — Murray be- 
 trays Norfolk. — Rising of Nortbunib rhxnd and Westmoreland. — 
 Murray arrests Northumberland. — Dares not sell hiin to Eliza- 
 beth. — Indignation of the People — INIurray shot at Linlith- 
 gow. — His Eulogy. — Elizabeth's Barbarity. — Another Rising. 
 
 — Lady Lennox. — Darnley's Motiier acknowledges JMary's Inno- 
 cence. — Her Letter. — Mr. Froude does not see it . • . . 277 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 Walsingham's Plot. — Plots to release Mary. — Plot against Eliza- 
 beth. — Str\pe quoted. — Lord Brougham's A^iew. — Walsing- 
 ham's Guilt — Paulet and Phillips. — Suggestive Correspondence. 
 
 — Paulet refuses to execute Plot. — M. Mignet's Opinion. — De- 
 ciphered Letters. — The Work done in Walsingham's Office. — His 
 Devices and Tools. — The Queen's Secretaries. — Babington and 
 Companions executed. — Elizabeth's Humanity. — Testimony of 
 Nau and Curie. — Mary's Papers. — What is Legal Evidence? — 
 Counsel for Mary. — Leicester suggests Poison. — Mary refuses to 
 appear. — Her Objections. — Why she consented. — The I'rial at 
 Fotheiingav. — Mr.ny Learned Counselors. — None for the Queen. 
 
 — A Pettifogger. — Mary appeals. — She accuses Wal.«ingham. 
 
 — Protests her Innocence. — Commission adjourned. — Lord 
 Brougham's Statement of the C »se 283 
 
 CHAPTER XXVL * 
 
 Elizabeth's Equanimit}-. — Her Spirit and Moon. — Petition of Par- 
 liament. — Puckeri'ig. — Piety. — Oracular Answer. — King of 
 France sends Ambassador. — How he was thwarted. — The Stafford 
 Trick. — Forgerv. — Accomplished Actress. — Elizabeth's Men- 
 dacity. — Secretary Davison. — The Death-warrant. — Amyas Pau- 
 let. — Walsingham's Letter. — Paulet refuses to Assassinate. — A 
 Foul Plot. — Elizabeth's Conduct. — Mary Stuart's Letter to Eliz- 
 abeth ... * 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 The Death Sentence. —INIary's Protest. — A Popish Testament. — 
 Religious Consolation. — Death To-morrow. — Preparation. — The 
 Night before the Execution. — Humanity and Decency. — Andrew 
 Melville. — The C^reat Hall. — The Scaffold. - An Apostolic Man. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 295 
 
X 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 — Into Tliy Hands. — The Executioner strikes a Blow. — A Sec- 
 ond. — Death 301 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIir. 
 
 Historian and Headsman. — The Ethical Principle. — Human S^'m- 
 pathy. — Labored Impromptu. — The Historian's Charity. — 
 Where is th\' Victory. — Mr. Fronde's Description of the Execu- 
 tion. — Some Remarks upon it ....... 306 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 A Theory offered 31 :J 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. 1. — Extract from Martin, " Ilistoire de France," concerning 
 
 Catherine de Medicis 315 
 
 No. 2. — Extract from Sismondi, " Histoire des Fran^'ais," concern- 
 ing Catherine de Medicis 31.5 
 
 No. 3. — Notice cf M. Migiiet's " Vie de Marie Stuart " . . . 315 
 No. 4. — Extract, Martin, "Histoire de France," as to Mary Stuart's 
 
 departure from France 31G 
 
 No. 5. — Notice of Prince Alexander Labanoff's ('olIecLion of Mar}' 
 
 Stuart's Letters 310 
 
 No. 6. — Contemporary Ballad (15G8). Extract .... 317 
 
 No. 7. — Copy of the so-called Ainslie Bond 317 
 
 No. 8. — Dr. Johnson on the Casket-letters. Extracts . . . 319 
 
 No. 9. — Notice of Buchanan and his " Detection " . . . 320 
 
 No 10. — List of Mary Stuart's Prisons in England . . . 323 
 
 No. 11. — Preface to Calendar of State Papers (Scotland). Extract 323 
 No. 12. — Pictures of Head of Mary Stuart. A Description by 
 
 Hawthorne 324 
 
 No. 13. — Bothwell's Dying Declaration 325 
 
 No. 14. — Remarkable Letter of Mary Stuart to Queen Elizabeth . 326 
 
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 MR. FROUDE's history OF ENGLAND.* 
 " Historian, a writer of facts and events." — Dictionaky. 
 
 If we accept general encomium and popular demand as 
 criteria of excellence, it is evident that Mr. Froude must 
 be the first historian of the period.^ That, with a vivid 
 pen, he possesses a style at once clear and graphic ; that 
 his fullness of knowledge and skill in description are ex- 
 ceptional ; that his phrase is brilliant, his analysis keen, 
 and that with ease and spirit, grace and energy, pictorial 
 and passionate power he combines consummate art in im- 
 agery and diction, we have been told so often and by so 
 many writers that it would seem churlish not to accord him 
 very high merit. Then, too, he is very much in earnest. 
 Whatever he does he does with all his might, and in his 
 enthusiasm often fairly carries his reader along with him. 
 
 But, in common with those who seek, not literary excite- 
 ment, but the facts of history, we go at once to the vital 
 
 1 History of England from the Fall of Wohey to the Death of Elizabeth. 
 By James Anthony Froude, late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. 12 
 vols. New York: Charles Scribner & Co. 
 
 2 The use of the editorial pronoun throughout this volume is the result 
 rather of accident than design. The four magazine articles forming the 
 basis of the Avork appeared editorially, and the plural form was inadver- 
 tently continued by the writer, who was far from foreseeing that the new. 
 matter would in quantity so much exceed the original. 
 
 1 
 
2 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 question, Is the work truthful ? Is it impartial ? If not, 
 its author's gifts are perverted, his attainments abused, and 
 their fruits, so bright and attractive to the eye, are filled 
 with ashes. 
 
 Impartial ! Difficult, indeed, is the attainment of that 
 admirable equilibrium of judgment which secures perfect 
 fairness of decision, and whose essential condition prece- 
 dent is the thorough elimination of personal preference and 
 party prejudice. And here is the serious obstacle in writ- 
 ing a history of England ; for there are very few of the 
 great historical questions of the sixteenth century that have 
 not left to us living men of to-day a large legacy of hopes, 
 doubts, and 23rejudices — nowhere so full of vitality as in 
 England, and in countries of English tongue. Not that 
 we mean to limit such a difficulty to one nation or to one 
 period ; for it is not certain that we free ourselves from the 
 spell of prejudice by taking refuge in a more remote age. 
 It might be thought that, in proportion as we go back toward 
 antiquity, leaving behind us to-day's interests and passions, 
 the modern historian's impartiality would become perfect. 
 And yet, there are few writers of whom even this is true. 
 Reverting historically to the cradle of Christianity, it can- 
 not fairly be asserted of Gibbon, although such a claim 
 has been made for him. 
 
 Nor can it be said even of modern historians of nations 
 long extinct, in common with which one might suppose the 
 people of this century had not a single prejudice. Take, 
 for instance, all the English historians of ancient Greece, 
 whose works (that of Grote being an honorable exception) 
 are so many political pamphlets arguing for oligarchy 
 against democracy, elevating Sparta at the sacrifice of 
 Athens, and thrusting at a modern republic through the 
 greatest of the Hellenic commonwealths. If Blerivale is 
 thought to treat Roman history with impartiality, the same 
 cannot be said of many modern European authors, who, 
 disguising modern politics in the ancient toga and helmet. 
 
• 
 
 MR. FROUDE's history OF ENGLAND. 
 
 3 
 
 cannot discuss the Roman imperial period without attack- 
 ing the Caisars of Paris, St. Petersburg, and Berlin. 
 
 The great religious questions which agitated England in 
 the sixteenth century are not dead. They still live, and 
 for the Anglican, the Puritan, and the Catholic have all the 
 deep interest of a family legend. It might, therefore, be 
 unreasonable to demand from the historian a greater degree 
 of dispassionate inquiry and calm treatment of subjects that 
 were " burning questions " in the days of Henry and Eliz- 
 abeth, than we find in Mitford and Gillies, when they dis- 
 cuss the political life of Athens and Lacedaemon. So far 
 from exacting it, we shonld be disposed to be most liberal in 
 the allowance of even a strongly expressed bias. But after 
 granting all this, and even more, we might yet not unrea- 
 sonably demand a system which is not a paradox, a show at 
 least of fairness, and a due regard for the proprieties of 
 historical treatment. 
 
 The first four volumes of this history of England present 
 the narrative of half the reign of Henry VIII., a prince 
 " chosen by Providence to conduct the Reformation," and 
 abolish the iniquities of the papal system. 
 
 The Tudor king historically known of all men before the 
 advent of Mr. Fronde with his modern appliances of hero- 
 worship and muscular Christianity, " melted so completely " 
 in our new historian's hands that his despotism, persecu- 
 tion, diplomatic assassinations, confiscations, divorces, legal- 
 ized murders, bloody vagrancy laws, tyranny over con- 
 science, and the blasphemous assumption of spiritual 
 supremacy are now made to appear as the praiseworthy 
 measures of an ascetic monarch striving to regenerate his 
 country and save the world. 
 
 There was such a sublimity of impudence in a paradox 
 presented with so much apparently sincere vehemence that 
 most readers were struck with dumb astonishment. A fas- 
 cinated few declared the deodorized infamy perfectly pure. 
 Some, pleased with pretty writing, were delighted with 
 
4: 
 
 * MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 poetic passages about " daisies," and " destiny," " wild spir- 
 its," and " August suns " that " .shone in autumn." Many 
 liked its novelty, some admired its daring, and some there 
 were who looked upon the thing simply as an enormous 
 joke. All these formed the great body of readers. 
 
 Others there were, though, who declined to accept results 
 which were violations of moralitj^, and verdicts against evi- 
 dence obtained by systematic vilification of some of the 
 best, and the elevation of some of the worst men who ever 
 lived, who refused to join in a blind idolatry incapable of 
 discerning flaw or stain in the unworthy object of its wor- 
 ship ; who saw Mr. Fronde's multifarious ignorance of 
 matters essential for a historian to -know, and his total want 
 of that judicial quality of mind, without which no one, even 
 though he were possessed of all knowledge, can. ever be a 
 historian. They resolved that such a system as this w^as a 
 nuisance to be abated, and that the new and unworthy 
 man-worship should be put an end to. Accordingly the idol 
 was smashed ; ^ and in the process, the idol's historian left 
 so badly damaged as to render his future availability highly 
 problematical. 
 
 The Scotch treatment was of instant efficacy ; for we 
 find Mr. Froude coming to his work on the fifth volume in 
 chastened frame of mind and an evidently corrected de- 
 meanor. He narrates the reigns of Mary and Edward VI. 
 with style and tone subdued, and in the measure designated 
 by musicians as tem'po moderato. 
 
 With the seventh volume we reach the accession of Queen 
 Elizabeth. We opened it with some curiosity ; for it was 
 understood from Mr. Froude, at the outset of his historical 
 career, that he intended to present Elizabeth as "a great 
 nature destined to remould the world," and that he was' 
 prepared to visit with something like astonishment and 
 unknown pangs all who should dare question the inmiac- 
 ulate purity of her virtue. It is not improbable that 
 
 1 See Edinburgh Review for January and October, 1858. 
 
MR. FROUDE'S history of ENGLAND. 
 
 5 
 
 the contemplation of the strewn and broken fragments of 
 the paternal idol materially modified this purpose — a 
 change ou*\vhich our historian must more than once have 
 fervently congratulated himself as he gradually penetrated 
 deeper into the treasures of the State paper collections, 
 and stared surprised at the astounding revelations of Si- 
 man cas. 
 
 We need not wonder that the historian altered his pro- 
 gramme ; and that instead of going on to the demise of 
 Elizabeth, under the obligation of recording the horrors of 
 the most horrible of death-bed scenes, he should hasten to 
 close his work with the wreck of the Spanish Armada. 
 
 The researches of our American historian. Motley, were 
 terribly damaging to Elizabeth ; and in the preparation of 
 his seventh volume, Mr. Froude comes upon discoveries so 
 fatal to her that he is evidently glad to drop his showy nar- 
 rative and fill his pages with letters of the Spanish ambas- 
 sador, who gives simple but wonderfully vivid pictures of 
 the disedifying scenes then too common at the English 
 court. 
 
 Future historians will doubtless take heed how they as- 
 sociate with the reputation of the sovereign any glory they 
 may claim for England under Elizabeth, remembering that 
 she was ready to marry Leicester notwithstanding her 
 strong suspicion, too probably assurance, of his crime (Amy 
 Robsart's murder), and that, in the language of an English 
 critic, " She was thus in the eye of Heaven, which judges 
 by the intent and not the act, nearer than Englishmen 
 would like to believe to the guilt of an adulteress and a 
 murderess." 
 
 But Mr. Froude plucks up courage, and, true to his first 
 love, while appearing to handle Elizabeth with cruel con- 
 demnation, treats her with real kindness. 
 
 We have all heard of Alcibiades and his dog, and of 
 what befell that animal. Our historian assumes an air of 
 stern severity for those faults of Elizabeth for which con- 
 
6 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 cealnient is out of the question — her mean parsimony, her 
 insincerity, her cruelty, her matchless mendacity ^ — while 
 industriously concealing or artistically draping her more 
 repulsive offenses. 
 
 But we do not propose to treat the work as a whole. A 
 chorus of repudiation from the most opposite schools of 
 criticism has effectually covered the attempted apotheosis of 
 a bad man with ridicule and contempt. As to Elizabeth, 
 the less said the better, if we are friendly to her memory. 
 
 In his earlier volumes his very defective knowledge of 
 all history before the sixteenth century led him into the 
 most grotesque blunders — errors in general and in details, 
 in geography, jurisprudence, titles, offices, and military af- 
 fairs. And so far from meriting the compliment paid him, 
 of accurate knowledge of the tenets and peculiar observ- 
 ances of the leading religious sects, acquired in the " course 
 of his devious theological career," it is precisely in such 
 matters that he seriously fails in accuracy. 
 
 Falling far short of a thorough grasp of his material, 
 the writer in question totally fails to make it up into an 
 interesting consecutive narrative. He lacks, too, the all- 
 important power of generalization, and, as has been aptly 
 remarked, handles a microscope skillfully, but is apparently 
 unable to see through a telescope. Heroic and muscular 
 withal, it is not surprising that his over-haste to produce 
 some startling result came near wrecking him in the morn- 
 ing of his career. 
 
 While his work was in course of publication, our histo- 
 rian wrote from Simancas, a sensational article for " Fra- 
 ser's Magazine," in which he announced some astounding 
 
 1 " Through her whole reign," says Lord Brougham, " she was a dis- 
 sembler, a pretender, a hypocrite. Whether in steering her crooked way 
 between rival sects, or in accommodating herself to conflicting factions, or 
 in pursuing the course she had resolved to follow amidst the various opin- 
 ions of the people, she ever displayed a degree of cunning and faithlessness 
 which it is impossible to contemplate without disgust." — Historical Sketches 
 of Statesmen^ by Henry, Lord Brougham, vol. i. 383, London edit. 
 
MR. FROUDE'S history OF ENGLAND. 
 
 7 
 
 historical discoveries, which but a few weeks later he was 
 only too ghid to recall. The trouble was that he had 
 totally misunderstood the Spanish documents on which his 
 discovery was grounded. 
 
 Along with his apparent incapacity for impartial judg- 
 ment, there is an evident inability in Mr. Froude to dis- 
 tinguish the relative value of different state papers ; and 
 the most striking proof that he is still in his apprenticeship 
 as a writer of history, is his indiscriminate acceptance of 
 written authorities of a certain class. Historical results 
 long since settled by the unanimous testimony of Camden, 
 Carte, and Lingard, the three great English historians of 
 the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries re- 
 spectively, are thrust aside by him and made to give way 
 to some MS. of doubtful value or questionable authenticity. 
 "When he finds a paper three hundred years old, he gives 
 it speech and sets it up as an oracle. Nor can the simile 
 be arrested here ; for, treating his oracle with the tyrannic 
 familiarity of a heathen priest, the paper Mumbo Jumbo 
 must speak as ordered, or else be sadly cuffed. 
 
 It is a serious error to imagine that when one has found 
 a mass of original historical papers, his labor of investiga- 
 tion is ended, and he has but to transcribe, to put his per- 
 sonages on the stage, let them act and declaim as these, 
 writings relate, and thus place before the reader the truth- 
 ful portrait of by-gone times. Far from it. It is at this 
 point that the historian's work really begins. He must 
 ascertain by comparison, by sifting of evidence, by many 
 precautions, who lies and who may be believed. 
 
 But very few of these difficulties have any terrors for 
 our English historian. Commencincf his investisfation with 
 his theory perfected, it is with him a mere choice of papers. 
 Swifl is the fate of facts not suiting his theory. So much 
 the worse for them, if they are not what he would have 
 them to be ;■ they are cast forth into outer darkness. 
 
 Our author has fine perceptive and imaginative faculties 
 
8 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 — admirable gifts for literature, but not for history. Desir- 
 able, if history depended on fiction, not on fact. Precious, 
 if historic truth were subjective. Above all price, where 
 the literary artist has the privilege of evolving from the 
 inner depths of his own consciousness the virtues or the 
 vices wherewith it suits him to endow his characters. But 
 alas ! otherwise utterly fatal, because historic truth is emi- 
 nently objective. 
 
 It has been well said that to be a good historical student, 
 a man should not find it in him to desire that any histor- 
 ical fact should be otherwise than it is. Now, we cannot 
 consent to a lower standard in logic and morality for the 
 historian than for the student ; and thus testing our author, 
 it is not pleasant to contemplate his sentence when judged 
 by stern votaries o" truth. For we have a well-grounded 
 belief that not only is it possible for Mr. Froude to desire a 
 historical fact to be otherwise than it is, but that he is capa- 
 ble of carrying that desire into effect. It is idle to talk 
 of the judicial quality of the historian who scarcely puts 
 on a semblance of impartiality. 
 
 In matters of state, Mr. Froude is a pamphleteer; in 
 personal questions, he is an advocate. He holds a brief 
 for Henry. He holds a brief against Mary Stuart. He 
 ' is the most effective of advocates, for he fairly throws 
 himself into his case. He is the declared friend or the 
 open enemy of all the personages in his history. Their 
 failure and their success affect his spirits and his style. 
 He rejoices with them or weeps with them. There are 
 some whose misfortunes uniformly make him sad. There 
 are others over whose calamities he becomes radiant. He 
 has no standard of justice, no ethical principle which esti- 
 mates actions as they are in themselves, and not in the 
 light of personal like or dislike of the actors. 
 
 It must be admitted, nevertheless, that Mr. Froude 
 makes up an attractive-looking page. Foot-notes and 
 citations in quantity, imposing capitals and inverted com- 
 
MR. FROUDE'S history OF ENGLAND. 9 
 
 mas, all combine to give it a certain typographical vivac- 
 ity. Great as are his rhetorical resources, he does not 
 despise the devices of print. 
 
 Quotation-marks are usually supposed to convey to the 
 reader the conventional assurance that they include the 
 precise words of the text. But his system is not so com- 
 monplace. He inserts therein language of his own, and 
 in all these cases his use of authorities is not only danger- 
 ous but deceptive. He has a way of placing some of the 
 actual words of a document in his narrative in such a man- 
 ner as totally to pervert their sense. The historian who 
 truthfully condenses a page into a paragraph saves labor 
 for the reader ; but Mr. Froude has a trick of giving long 
 passages in quotation-marks without sign of alteration or 
 omission, which we may or may not discover from a note to 
 be " abridged." 
 
 Other objectionable manipulations of our author are the 
 joining together of two distinct passages of a document, 
 thus entirely changing their original sense ; the connection 
 of two phrases from two different authorities presenting 
 them as one ; and the tacking of irresponsible or anony- 
 mous authorities to one that is responsible, concealing the 
 first, and avowing- the last. 
 
 Of the gravity of these charges we are perfectly well 
 aware, and we propose to make them good. 
 
 Then his texts, and the rapid boldness with which he 
 disposes of them ; cutting, trimming, clipping, provided 
 only that an animated dialogue or picturesque effect be 
 produced, causing the reader to exclaim, " How beautifully 
 Mr. Froude writes ! " " What a painter ! " " His book is as 
 interesting as a novel ! " And so it is ; for the excellent 
 reason that it is written precisely as novels are written, and 
 mainly depends for its interest upon the study of motives. 
 A superior novelist brings characters before us in startling 
 naturalness — his treatment, of course, being subjective, not 
 objective ; arbitrary, not historical. Mr. Froude, with his 
 
10. 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 great skill in depicting individual character and particular 
 events, follows the romancer's method, and may be said to 
 be the originator of what we may designate as the " psycho- 
 logical school " of history. This power gives him an im- 
 mense advantage over all other historians. 
 
 While they are burning the midnight lamp in the en- 
 deavor to detect the springs of action by the study of every- 
 thing that can throw light upon the action itself, he has 
 only to peer through the window which, like unto other 
 novelists, he has constructed in the bosom of every one of 
 his characters, to show us their most secret thoughts and 
 aspirations. One may open any of his volumes at random 
 and find an exemplification of what is here stated. As for 
 instance : — 
 
 " It was not thus that Mary Stuart had hoped to meet her 
 brother. His head sent home fi^om the Border, or himself brought 
 back a living prisoner, with the dungeon, the scaffold, and the 
 bloody axe — these were the images which a few weeks or days 
 before she had associated with the next appearance of her 
 father's son. Her feelings had undergone no change ; she hated 
 him with the hate of hell ; but the more deep-set passion paled 
 for the moment before a thirst for revenge." (viii. 267.) 
 
 ^ Here are depicted' the feverish workings of a wicked 
 heart ; its hopes, fears, passions — nay, even the very images 
 that float before the mind's eye. And we are asked to ac- 
 cept for history — ascertained fact — such fancy sketches of 
 secret mental turmoil as this. 
 
 Our historian takes unprecedented liberties with texts 
 and citations. Now he totally ignores what a given person 
 says on an important occasion. Now he puts a speech of 
 his own into the mouth of the same character. Passages 
 cited from certain documents cannot be found there, and 
 other documents referred to have no existence. In a 
 word, Mr. Froude trifles with his readers and plays with 
 his authorities, as some people play with cards. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 " I might say that I know more about the history of the sixteenth 
 century than I know about anything else." — James Anthony Feouue 
 in Short Studies on Great Subjects, p. 40. 
 
 Reference has been made to the defective knowledge 
 manifested by Mr. Froude of general history before the 
 sixteenth century ; and it might be added that in the con- 
 temporary history of foreign countries he is either deplora- 
 bly weak or makes strange concealment of his knowledge. 
 But our surprise increases when we find him quite as defi- 
 cient in the history of his own country. This is a matter 
 easily tested, and the test may be specially confined to the 
 period of Elizabeth, with which, according to his late ap- 
 peal through the "Pall Mall Gazette," Mr. Froude has 
 labored so industriously and is so entirely familiar. 
 
 And the test proposed reveals his total unconsciousness 
 of the existence of one of the most peculiar laws of Eng- 
 land then in force. A clever British reviewer, in express- 
 ing his surprise at our historian's multifarious ignorance 
 concerning the civil and criminal jurisprudence of his 
 country, says that it is difficult to believe that Mr. Froude 
 has ever seen the face of an English justice ; and the re- 
 proach is well merited. Nevertheless we do not look for 
 the accuracy of a Lingard, or even of a Macaulay, in an 
 imaginative writer like Mr. Froude, and might excuse nu- 
 merous slips and blunders as to law pleadings and the 
 forms of criminal trials — nay, even as to musty old stat- 
 utes and conflicting legislative enactments (as, for instance, 
 when he puts on an air of critical severity (ix. 38) as to the 
 allowance of a delay of fifteen days in Bothwell's trial. 
 
12 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 claiming, in his defective knowledge of the Scotch law, 
 that it should have been forty days) ; but when we find his 
 mind a total blank as to the very existence of one of the 
 most peculiar and salient features of English law, we must 
 insist that such ignorance in one who sets up for an Eng- 
 lish historian is, to say the least, very remarkable. 
 
 Here is the case. During the reign of Elizabeth, one 
 Thomas Cobham, like unto many other good English Prot- 
 estants, was, Mr. Froude informs us, " roving the seas, half 
 pirate, half knight-errant of the Reformation, doing battle 
 on his own account with the enemies of the truth, wherever 
 the service of God was likely to be repaid with plunder." 
 (viii. 459.) He took a Spanish vessel (England and Spain 
 being at peace), with a cargo valued at eighty thousand 
 ducats, killing many on board. After all resistance had 
 ceased, he " sewed up the captain and the survivors of the 
 crew in their own sails, and flung them overboard." Even in 
 England this performance of Cobham was looked upon as 
 somewhat rough and slightly irregular, and at the indignant 
 requisition of Spain, he was tried in London for piracy. 
 De Silva, the Spanish ambassador at the court of Elizabeth, 
 wrote home an account of the trial. AVe now quote Mr. 
 Froude,*who being — as a learned English historian should 
 be — perfectly familiar with the legal institutions of his 
 country, and knowing full well that the punishment de- 
 scribed by De Silva was never inflicted in England, is nat- 
 urally shocked at the ignorance of this foreigner, and thus 
 presents and comments upon his letter : — 
 
 " Thomas Cobham," wrote De Silva, " being asked at the trial, 
 according to the usual form in England, if he had anything to 
 say in arrest of judgment, and answering nothing, was condemned 
 to be taken to the Tower, to be stripped naked to the skin, and 
 then to be placed with his shoulders resting on a sharp stone, his 
 legs and arms extended, and on his stomach a gun, too heavy 
 for him to bear, yet not large enough immediately to crush him. 
 There he is to be left till he die. They will give him a few grains 
 
MR. FROUDE'S history OF ENGLAND. 
 
 13 
 
 of corn to eat, and for drink the foulest water in tlie Tower." — 
 (viii. 449, 1st London ed.) 
 
 It would not be easy to state the case in fewer words 
 and more accurately than De Silva here puts it. Cobham 
 was called upon to answer in the usual form, and " answer- 
 ing nothing " or " standing mute," " was condemned," etc. 
 A definition of the offense and a description of its punish- 
 ment by the well-known peine forte et dure were thus clearly 
 presented ; but even then our historian fails to recognize 
 an offense and its penalty, perfectly familiar to any student 
 who has ever read Blackstone or Bailey's Law Dictionary, 
 and makes this astounding comment on De Silva's letter : — 
 
 " Had any such sentence been pronounced, it toould not have been 
 left to he discovered in the letter of a stranger ; the ambassador may 
 perhaps, in this instance, have been purposely deceived, and his 
 demand for justice satisfied by a fiction of imaginary horror." — 
 (viii. 449, 1st London ed.) 
 
 This unfortunate performance was received by critical 
 readers with mirthful surprise, and as a consequence, al- 
 though the passages we have cited may be found, as we 
 have indicated, in the first London, they need not be looked 
 for in later editions. On the contrary, we now learn from 
 Mr. Froude (Scribner edition of 1870, viii. 461), that 
 " Cobham refused to plead to his indictment, and the dread- 
 ful sentence was passed upon him of the peine forte et 
 dure ; " and thereto is appended an erudite note for the in- 
 struction of persons supposed to be unacquainted with 
 English law, explaining the matter, and citing Blackstone, 
 " book iv. chap. 25." 
 
 But, possibly it may be suggested, this dreadful punish- 
 ment was rarely inflicted, and that fact may serve to excuse 
 the gross blunder ? Not at all. Other instances of the 
 peine forte et dure occurred in this very reign of Elizabeth. 
 Here is one which almost inspires us with a feeling of com- 
 passion for the much denounced Spanish Inquisition. 
 
14 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Margaret Middleton, the wife of one Clitheroe, a rich 
 citizen of York, was prosecuted for having harbored a 
 priest in quality of a schoohnaster. At the bar (March 
 25th, 1586) she refused to plead guilty, because she knew 
 that no sufficient proof could be brought against her ; and 
 she would not plead " not guilty," because she considered 
 such a plea equivalent to a falsehood. The peine forte et 
 dure was immediately ordered. 
 
 " After she had prayed, Fawcet, the sheriff', commanded them 
 to put off" her apparel ; when she, with the four women, requested 
 him on their knees that, for the honor of womanhood, this might 
 be dispensed with. But they would not grant it. Then she re- 
 quested them that the women might unapparel her, and that they 
 would turn their faces from her during that time. 
 
 " The women took off her clothes, and put upon her the long 
 linen habit. Then very quickly she laid her down upon the 
 ground, her face covered with a handkerchief, and most part of 
 her body with the habit. The door was laid upon her; her 
 hands she joined toward her face. Then the sheriff" said, ' Naie, 
 ye must have your hands bound.' Then two sergeants parted 
 her hands, and bound them to two posts. After this they laid 
 weight upon her, which, when she first felt she said, ' Jesu, Jesu, 
 Jesu, have mercye upon mee,' which were the last words she was 
 heard to speake. She was in dying about one quarter of an 
 hour. A sharp stone, as much as a man's fist, had been put 
 under her back ; upon her was laied to the quantitie of seven or 
 eight hundred weight, which, breaking her ribbs caused them to 
 burst forth of the skinne." 
 
 This dreadful incident naturally brings us to the consid- 
 eration of a kindred subject most singularly treated in Mr. 
 Fronde's pages. If the constant use of torture and the 
 rack had been a feature of Mary Stuart's reign, and not, as 
 it was, the constant and favorite expedient of Elizabeth and 
 Cecil,^ what bursts of indignant eloquence should we not 
 have been favored with by our historian, and what admira- 
 
 1 " The rack seldom stood idle in the Tower for all the latter part of 
 Elizabeth's reign." — Hallam, Constitutional History of England. 
 
MR. FROUDE'S history OF ENGLAND. 
 
 15 
 
 ble illustrations would it not have furnished him as to the 
 brutalizing tendencies of Catholicity and the superior hu- 
 manity and enlightenment of Protestantism ? Nothing so 
 clearly shows the government of Elizabeth to have been a 
 despotism as her constant employment of torture. Every 
 time she or Cecil sent a prisoner to the rack — and they sent 
 hundreds — they trampled the laws of England under foot. 
 These laws, it is true, sometimes authorized painful ordeals 
 and severe punishments, but the rack never. Torture was 
 never legally authorized in England. But the trickling 
 blood, the agonized cries, the crackling bones, the " strained 
 limbs and quivering muscles" (Froude vi. 294) of mar- 
 tyred Catholics make these Tudor practices lovely in Mr. 
 Fronde's eyes, and he philosophically remarks, " The 
 method of inquiry, however inconsonant with modern con- 
 ceptions of justice, was adapted excellently for the outroot- 
 ing of the truth." (x. 293.) 
 
 We could hardly have believed that any man of modern 
 enlightenment could possibly entertain such opinions. They 
 are simply amazing. Torture is not only "inconsonant" 
 with modern conceptions of justice, but also with ancient ; 
 for it is condemned even by the sages of the code which 
 authorized it. Mr. Froude might have learned something 
 of this matter from the Digests (liber xviii. tit. 18). The 
 passage is too long to cite, but one sentence alone tells us 
 in a few words of the fallacy, danger, and deception of the 
 use of torture : " Etenim res est fragilis et periculosa, et 
 quae veritatem fall at." 
 
 So much for ancient opinion. And modern justice has 
 rejected the horrible thing, not only on the ground of 
 morality, but because it has been demonstrated to be a 
 promoter of perjury and the worst possible means of " out- 
 rooting " the truth. The true history of the Throckmorton 
 affiiir, so sadly travestied by our historian in his twelfth 
 volume, is a case in point. 
 
 To return : the case of Cobham is not the only one in 
 
16 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 which Mr. Fronde has prudently profited by criticism, and 
 hastened, in a new edition of his work, to repair his error. 
 Even slight comparison of his first with his last edition will 
 show him to be under deep obligations to his critics, and it 
 would be wise in him to seek increase of his debt of grati- 
 tude by fresh corrections. 
 
 Under a thin veil of sentimental tinsel, fringed with 
 rhetorical shreds about " pleasant mountain breezes " anc( 
 " blue skies smiling cheerily," our historian always has his 
 own little device ; and, by innuendo and by every artifice 
 of rhetorical exaggeration, never loses the opportunity of 
 a deadly thrust at those he dislikes. It is unfortunate for 
 any claim that might be made in favor of his impartiality 
 that in his pages to hold certain religious tenets is to insure 
 his enmity. With more or less vehemence of language, in 
 stronger or milder tone of condemnation, this is the one 
 thing that surely brings out this writer's best efforts in de- 
 traction, from muttered insinuation to the joyous exuber- 
 ance of a jubilant measure in which, occasionally forgetting 
 himself, he, like Hugh in " Barnaby Rudge," astounds his 
 auditory with an extemporaneous No-Popery dance. 
 
 The insidious suggestion is found in such cases as those 
 of Sir Thomas More and Katherine of Aragon. Henry's 
 outrages on this noble woman, we are assured, were either 
 caused by herself or were the result of that omnipresent 
 " inevitable " which, according to our historian, produced 
 all the wickedness of Henry's reign. " Her injuries, inev- 
 itable as they were, and forced u^Don her in great measure 
 by her own willfulness." ^ (i. 445.) For Reginald Pole, 
 there is labored effort of invidious depreciation ; for Black 
 
 1 In this connection, we must do INIr. Froude the justice to mention that 
 he does not entirely approve Henry's conduct in Iveeping Anne Boleyn 
 under the same roof with his lawful wife, and finds in it a " singular blem- 
 ish." Strictly speaking, it must be admitted that the performance was not 
 " nice." And yet, in the face of this utterly indefensible abomination, our 
 historian, sensible to the last, seeks to imagine circumstances which might 
 " perhaps jmrtially palliate iV The passage is characteristic, (i. 313.) 
 
Mn. froude's history of England. 
 
 17 
 
 and Cardinal Beaton, the reassertion of exploded calum- 
 nies to palliate their assassination ; and for Mary Stuart, 
 a scream of hatred with which he accompanies her from 
 her mother's nursing arms to the scaffold of Fotheringay, 
 where grinning with exultant delight at the scars of dis- * 
 ease and the contortions of death, the scream deepens into 
 a savage scalp-howl worthy of a Camanche on his bloodiest 
 war-path. 
 
 An early occasion is seized (i. 53) to damn with faint 
 praise the noblest character of his age, by classifying Sir 
 Thomas More with men not worthy to mend the great 
 chancellor's pens ; and with quite an air of impartiality, 
 Mr. Froude talks of " the high accomplishments of More 
 and Sir T. Elliott, of Wyatt and Cromwell." 
 
 Indirection and insinuation are effective weapons never 
 out of this historian's hands. In an allusion or remark, 
 dropped apparently in the most careless manner, he will 
 lay the foundation of a system of attack one or two vol- 
 umes off and many years in historical advance of his ob- 
 jective point. At page 272, vol. i., we are told of " three 
 years later, when the stake recommenced its hateful activity 
 under the auspices of Sir Thomas More's fanaticism." 
 Thus the way is prepared for the accusation of personal 
 cruelty, which Mr. Froude strives, in vol. ii., to lay at 
 More's door. More's greatness and beautiful elevation of 
 character are evidently unpleasant subjects for our his- 
 torian, and in speaking of him as one " whose life was of 
 blameless purity " (ii. 79), he grudgingly yields him a credit 
 which he seeks to sweep away in the charge of religious 
 persecution, specifying four particular cases : those of Phil- 
 ipps, Field, Bilney, and Bainham. 
 
 These cases have been taken up seriatim by a competent 
 critic (the reader curious to see them may consult the ap- 
 pendix to the October Number "Edinburgh Review" 1858), 
 who demonstrates that Mr. Froude's pretended authorities 
 do 7iot tell the story he undertakes to put in their mouth, 
 
18 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 and that he is guilty of such perversions as are exceedingly 
 damaging to his reputation. 
 
 Soon follows a justification of Henry's judicial murders 
 of More and Fisher, for the crime of holding the very doc- 
 trine which Henry himself, in his work against Luther, had 
 but lately asserted. A pretense is made to give an account 
 of More's trial, but its great feature, which was More's 
 crushing defense, is totally omitted. Characteristic of the 
 new historical school is Mr. Froude's reason why More and 
 Fisher (the latter, as Mr. Fronde informs us, " sinking 
 into the grave with age and sickness," — ii. 362), innocent 
 of all crime, were righteously sent to the scaffold. It was, 
 you see, most untranscendental reader, because " the voices 
 crying underneath the altar had been heard upon the 
 throne of the Most High, and woe to the generation of 
 which the dark account had been demanded." (ii. 377.) 
 
 And if any one is so unreasonable as to inquire into the 
 nature of the connection in this unpleasant business be- 
 tween the " Most High " and Henry YHL, — two princes 
 of very nearly equal merit in Mr. Froude's estimation, — he 
 will find himself summarily warned off the premises by the 
 historian thus : " History will rather dwell upon the inci- 
 dents of the execution, than attempt a sentence upon those 
 who willed it should be so. It was at once most piteous 
 and most inevitable." (ii. 376.) 
 
 And so, inquisitive reader, enjoy as well as you may the 
 chopping off of heads, but do not ask impertinent ques- 
 tions as to " those who willed it should be so." Indeed, 
 such inquiry would seem to be useless, for, as we read 
 further, we ascertain from Mr. Froude's pages that nobody 
 in particular is to blame. 
 
 We all know that the mind of the historian should be 
 not only passionless but colorless. But Mr. Froude is so 
 frankly a partisan, that in his work color is strong and pas- 
 sion deep. And this is not the result of a constitutional 
 infirmity which makes him unconsciously and uniformly 
 
MR. FROUDE'S history OF ENGLAND. 
 
 19 
 
 either an optimist or a pessimist. Not at all. lie is one 
 or the other at will, and as his prejudice rules. With him 
 certain historical characters must be always wrong, always 
 bad ; while others remain always right and always good. 
 Where historical facts totally fail, or are too stubborn for 
 use, unlimited store of rhetoric and imagination make good 
 the void. Compare the historic treatment of Henry with 
 that of Mary Stuart. In the case of the Tudor king, his 
 friends and parasites are profusely quoted, and at every few 
 pages he is allowed to speak for himself. Allowed ? Why, 
 when he opens his mouth, there is really a tone of " Hats 
 off" in Mr. Fronde's introduction of the golden words 
 about to fall from those august lips. ^ 
 
 Passed through Mr. Fronde's historical alembic, acts of 
 cruelty and tyranny which have hitherto made Henry's 
 name odious now redound to his honor. In great part, 
 it appears, these acts " were inevitable." 
 
 Then Thomas Cromwell's head was taken off because 
 " the law in a free country cannot keep pace with genius." 
 (iii. 455.) And although Cromwell ^ was executed without 
 
 1 A single instance: the historian is speaking of the acts of the reign of 
 Henry VIII. upon which the Enghsh Poor Law is founded, and says, " They 
 are so remarkable in their tone, and so rich in their detail, as to furnish a 
 complete exposition of English thought at that time upon the subject; 
 while the second of these two acts, and probably the first also, has a further 
 interest for us, as being the composition of Henry himself, and the nwst 
 finished which he has left to us." (i. 82.) 
 
 Now the acts here so admiringly eulogized as the finished composition of 
 Henry himself, were the savage and brutal laws under which, in England 
 alone of all Christian countries, the penalty of poverty was legally decreed 
 to be the stocks, whip, scourge, cart-tail, stripping naked, mutilation, 
 branding, felony, and — death. These were the mild suppressive means 
 for beggary used by a monarch whose " only ambition," Mr. Froude as- 
 sures us, *' was to govern his subjects by the rule of Divine law and the 
 Divine love, to the salvation of their souls and bodies." (iii. 474.) 
 
 To many the idea of " Divine love " in connection with the author of 
 such a performance must appear as simply blasphemous. Even our enthu- 
 siastic historian has a glimmering suspicion of this, for he says (i. 87), iu 
 speaking of the horrible law, " The merit of it, or the guilt of it, if guilt 
 there be, originated with him alone." 
 
 2 We have contradictor)'- accounts of the origin of Episcopalianism. Mr. 
 
20 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 even pretense of trial (even Mr. Froude admits, " in fair- 
 ness, Cromwell should have been tried") by a tender- 
 hearted and pious monarch, it was all inevitable." " In- 
 evitable," too, was the foul murder of Cardinal Beaton by 
 Scotch assassins ^ in Henry's pay, because " his [Henry's] 
 position obliged him to look at facts as they were rather 
 than through conventional forms." (iv. 296.) "Inevitable," 
 too, the fate of the amnestied rebels of the North, because 
 there was "no resource but to dismiss them out of a 
 world in which they had lost their way, and will not, or 
 cannot, recover themselves." (iii. 175.) 
 
 Remedy most radical ; for it is plain that people dis- 
 patched headless into the next world will never again lose 
 their way in this. 
 
 But of all Mr. Froude's ingenious explanations we find 
 none at once so entertaining and so edifying as that as- 
 signed for the dreadful mortality among Henry's wives. 
 This it is. Give it your attention : — 
 
 " It woiild have been well for Henry VIII. if he had lived in 
 a world in which women could have been dispensed with, so ill 
 in all his relations with them he succeeded. With men he could 
 speak the right word, he could do the right thing ; with women 
 he seemed to be under a fatal necessity of mistake." (i. 430.) 
 
 Froude clears them up. The so-called Church of England was, it seems, a 
 clever invention of Thomas Cromwell, although we had supposed that 
 Henry VIII. had a hand in it. In his eulogy of Cromwell, our historian 
 informs us (iii. 478), " Wave after wave has rolled over his work. Roman- 
 ism flowed back over it under Mary. Puritanism, under another even 
 grander Cromwell, overwhelmed it. But Romanism ebbed again, and Pu- 
 ritanism is dead, and the polity of the Church of England remains as it 
 was left by its creator." Lord Macaulay takes a different view of the 
 movement, and says: " The work, which had been begun by Henry the 
 murderer of his wives, was continued by Somerset the murderer of his 
 brother, and completed by Elizabeth the murderer of her guest." 
 
 1 On the authority of John Knox, Mr. Froude describes the principal 
 assassin as " a man of nature most gentle and modest." (iv. 4-36.) How 
 consoling to the murdered cardinal in his dying agony, that, "in disregard 
 of conventional forms," a man of such lovely character should have been 
 hired to cut his throat with pious deliberation. 
 
MR. FROUDE'S history OF ENGLAND. 
 
 21 
 
 "We know of but one passage in all our literature that at 
 all approaches this in original logic and massive fun. We 
 refer to Artemus Ward's opinion concerning one Jefferson 
 Davis : " It would," says A. W., — " it would have been 
 better than ten dollars in his [J. D.'s] pocket if he'd 
 never been born." 
 
 Our historian's views of the philosophy of history, of the 
 agency of fate, and of the subordination of morality to the 
 "inevitable," all undergo a radical change after leaving 
 Henry VIII. His partisanship culminates on reaching 
 Mary Stuart, when it comes out with more elaborate ma- 
 chinery of innuendo, more careful finish of invention, un- 
 scrupulous assertion, wealth of invective, and relentless 
 hatred. Events cease to be inevitable. The historian's 
 generous supply of palliation and justification (usually " by 
 faith alone ") has all been lavished on Henry or reserved 
 for Murray. 
 
 In no one instance is there " fatal necessity of mistake " 
 for Mary ; and her sorrows, her misfortunes, her involun- 
 tary errors, and the infamous outrages inflicted upon her 
 by others, are, we are told, all crimes of her own invention 
 and perpetration. Authorities cited are mainly her per- 
 sonal enemies or her paid detractors. Of what she herself 
 wrote or said there is rigid economy, and nothing is allowed 
 to be heard from what is called " that suspected source." 
 
 Simply as a question of space, we renounced at the out- 
 set the idea of following Mr. Froude through all his tortu- 
 ous ways, and only undertook to point out some of his 
 grossest errors. Proper historic treatment in the case is 
 difficult, not to say impossible, for the reason that he has 
 produced, not so much a history of Mary Stuart as a 
 sweeping indictment in terms of abuse which few prosecut- 
 ing attorneys would dare present in a criminal court, and 
 in which he showers upon the Queen of Scots such epithets 
 as " murderess," " ferocious animal," " panther," " wild-cat," 
 and " brute." 
 
CHAPTER in. 
 
 "On n'est pas historien pour avoir ecrit des histoires." — Voltaire. 
 
 At the outset we must confess our inability to trace 
 Mr. Froude's every step. We cannot reasonably be called 
 upon to follow his history and any reasonably chronological 
 system at one and the same time. If such an attempt 
 were made, we should be compelled to invade the nursery 
 of the infant Mary Stuart with a discussion of anticipated 
 accusations brought against her when she was nearer to 
 her grave than to her cradle, for our historian manages to 
 convict her as a grown woman while she is still a puling 
 baby in her mother's arms. 
 
 Most historians begin at the beginning. But our new 
 school has resources heretofore unknown, and quietly an- 
 ticipates that ordinary point of departure. Mary Stuart is 
 formally brought on to Mr. Froude's historical stage in the 
 middle of the seventh volume, and the reader might be 
 supposed to take up Jier story without a single precon- 
 ceived opinion. Doubtless, he does so take it up, unsus- 
 picious of the fact that three volumes back his judgment 
 was already fettered and led captive. For already, in the 
 fourth volume (p. 208), Mary of Guise is described as 
 lifting her baby out of the cradle, in order that Sir Ealph 
 Sadlier " might admire its health and loveliness." " Alas ! 
 for the child," says Mr. Fronde, in tones of tender com- 
 passion ; born in sorrow and nurtured in treachery ! It 
 grew to be Mary Stuart; and Sir Ralph Sadlier lived to 
 sit on the commission which investigated the murder of 
 Darnley." 
 
 There is nothing very startling in this. The reader's 
 
ANTICIPATED VERDICT. 
 
 23 
 
 mind naturally absorbs the statement, and he goes on. In 
 the next volume (v. 57), while deeply interested in the 
 military operations of the Duke of Somerset, we are told, 
 as it were en passant : " Thursday he again advanced 
 over the ground where, fourteen years later, Mary Stuart, 
 the object of his enterprise, practiced archery with Both- 
 well ten days after her husband's murder." 
 Consummately artistic ! 
 
 The reader has not yet reached Mary Stuart ; her his- 
 tory is not yet commenced ; he supposes his mind, as re- 
 gards her, to be a mere blank page, and yet our historian 
 has already contrived to inscribe upon the blank page 
 these two facts, she was the murderess of Darnley, and 
 she was guilty of adultery with Both well. Not a tittle 
 of evidence has been offered, no argument is presented. 
 With graceful and almost careless disinvoltiira, Mr. Froude 
 has merely alluded to two incidents, one of which is a long 
 exploded falsehood, and lo ! the case against Mary Stuart 
 is complete. For these are the two great accusations upon 
 which the entire controversy hinges, a controversy that has 
 raged for three centuries. Very clever ! Very clever in- 
 deed ! 
 
 Give but slight attention to Mr. Fronde's system and 
 you will find that his treatment of the historical characters 
 he dislikes is after the recipe of Figaro : " Calomniez, 
 calomniez, il en reste toujours quelque chose ; " and that 
 under the sentimentality of his "summer seas," "pleasant 
 mountain breezes," " murmuring streams," " autumnal suns," 
 patriotic longings, and pious reveries, there is a vein of 
 persistent and industrious cunning much resembling that 
 of Mr. Harold Skimpole, who is a perfect child in all 
 matters concerning money, who knows nothing of its value, 
 who "loves to see the sunshine, loves to hear the wind 
 blow : loves to watch the chanorinor liorhts and shadows ; 
 loves to hear the birds, those choristers in nature's great 
 cathedral " — but, meantime, keeps a sharp look-out for 
 the main chance. 
 
24 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Much depends upon the impression made on the mind 
 of the reader at the outset of his study of any given his- 
 torical character. Our English historian fully appreciates 
 this, and like unto the careful builder, lays his foundations 
 broad and deep. 
 
 In introducing Mary Stuart he is lavish of his best ef- 
 forts in insinuation and suppression. The reader naturally 
 looks to a great historian for an intelligible account of the 
 early years and mental development of a character des- 
 tined to fill so prominent a part in the great events of the 
 period, and to become one of the most interesting person- 
 ages in history. 
 
 But no information is vouchsafed concerning her mind, 
 manners, disposition, or education. 
 
 And herein the distinguished historian is logical. The 
 Queen of Scots is to be made sensual and brutish — what 
 need, therefore, of even an elementary education ? And 
 wherefore waste time in describing the innocent girlhood 
 of one whom he snatches an infant from her cradle and 
 holds up to his readers, telling them, " This child grown 
 to woman is guilty of adultery and murder." Truly a 
 work of supererogation. 
 
 And yet, as a general rule, Mr. Fronde is not econom- 
 ical of " birth, parentage, and education " essays, although, 
 while managing to bestow them on very secondary per- 
 sonages, he has none for Mary Stuart. Latimer and John 
 Knox are favored in this respect, and even to the bastard 
 son of Henry VIII. — "the young Marcellus," as Mr. 
 Froude proudly calls him — are devoted two full pages of 
 gushing enthusiasm concerning his youthful disj^ositions 
 and early studies. He was, alas I " illegitimate, unfortu- 
 nately ; " " hut of beauty and noble promise." (i. 364-366.) 
 Everything connected with this result of Tudor adultery 
 is touching and beautiful to Mr. Fronde's mind. Henry's 
 mistress is " an accomplished and most interesting person " 
 
 the offspring of the connection, one boy only," — only 
 
•CATHERINE DE MEDTCTS. 
 
 25 
 
 one boy, — "passed away in the flower of his loveliness," 
 and the historian in his wild grief so far forgets himself as 
 to indulge in the citation of sentimental verses. 
 
 Mr. Fronde's educational record of Mary Stuart's 
 youth is very short and suggestive. She " was brought up 
 amidst the political iniquities of the court of Catherine de 
 Medicis." (vii. 104.) On the foundation of this singular 
 statement, an imposing superstructure is raised, and in all 
 the succeeding volumes every pretext is seized for refer- 
 ence to the discovery that the education of the child Mary 
 Stuart was intrusted to Catherine de Medicis. Worse 
 than this, the reader is forced to suppose that such educa- 
 tion had nothing to do with useful branches of knowledge, 
 but was confined exclusively to lessons in moral and polit- 
 ical wickedness, and that from the moment the little Queen 
 of Scots set foot in France, she daily took lessons in 
 Machiavelli (Spelling-book, Catechism, and Reader, spe- 
 cially prepared for the use of children), and afterwards at- 
 tended a regular course of lectures on Statecraft delivered 
 by Catherine de Medicis. Even Mr. Burton floats with 
 the superficial current in writing : " The profound dissimu- 
 lation of that political school of which Catherine de Medi- 
 cis was the chief instructor, and her daughter-in-law an 
 apt scholar." ^ 
 
 Mr. Fronde's imperfect knowledge of continental history 
 has naturally been the subject of sharp stricture, but his 
 critics would appear to be more than justified when we 
 find him making constant and glib reference to a historical 
 
 1 History of Scotland, iv. 205. Mr. John Hill Burton's History of 
 Scotland (six vols.), lately completed, has been highly praised by com- 
 petent critics. 
 
 On the history of primitive Scotland in particular, he has, it is said, la- 
 bored to better purpose than any historian before him, and solved problems 
 with which even the laborious Tytler unsuccessfully grappled. 
 
 In his treatment of Mary Stuart's reign, he writes mainly upon what 
 was printed before him, citing no new authorities. He assumes the case 
 against her as made, and treats the subject in the tone and spirit of placid 
 dogmatism. 
 
26 
 
 MAKY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 fact, which, on examination, proves to be an individual 
 fjincy, for Mary Stuart never was at the court of Catlierine 
 de Medicis. During Mary's sojourn in France, the royal 
 court was that of Henry II., and later, of Francis 11. 
 Charles IX. succeeded his brother Francis. 
 
 During all this period there was no such thing known as 
 the court of Catherine de Medicis. True, she was the 
 Avife of Henry 11. and the mother of Francis and Charles, 
 but the court was the court of the reigning king, and was 
 so far from being even nominally that of Catherine 
 through personal or political influence — that, although 
 queen consort and queen mother, she was a mere cipher, 
 an unknown quantity ^ until she governed in the name of 
 Charles IX. 
 
 But Mary Stuart had then left France for Scotland, and 
 it was only then that the astute and unprincipled Catherine, 
 whom we know through history, first came into recognized 
 existence. 
 
 Even a moderate acquaintance with French historians 
 might have taught Mr. Froude that for twenty-six long 
 years Catherine de Medicis merely vegetated at the 
 French court without influence, and even totally ignored 
 or looked upon with suspicion and contempt, and that she 
 moreover quietly accepted and even cultivated the utter 
 obscurity to which she was condemned.^ Hopes, jealous- 
 ies, resentments, ambition, she may have had, but if they 
 ever existed she certainly smothered them all. Nor did 
 she in all those years give any indication of the marked 
 ability and clever wickedness for which she afterwards be- 
 came celebrated, and of which she appears to have herself 
 so long been in ignorance. 
 
 French history specially records that all the advantage 
 
 1 '• Son mari I'avait laiss^e sans credit et sans poiivoir." — Sismondi, 
 Hisliiij'e (Jcs Fi-antuds^ vol. xviii. p. 101. 
 
 2 The historian Si-mondi states this very forcibl}^: " Depuis vinjjt-six ans 
 elle ^tait t'tablie a la cour de France, et cependant elle avait reiissi a y 
 dissimuler en qiielque sorte son existence." 
 
CATHERINE DE MEDICIS. 
 
 27 
 
 she derived from tlie title of Queen was the honor of bear- 
 ing children to the king. Her life, until after the decease 
 of her husband and eldest son, was one of long constraint; 
 yet under the habitual cold reserve and constant dissimu- 
 lation she imposed upon herself, it is more than probable 
 that she nourished the machiavellic genius and universal 
 skepticism of which she afterwards gave such striking 
 proofs 
 
 As to the personal relations between Catherine de IMed- 
 icis and the young Mary Stuart,^ it is notorious that on the 
 part of the latter there always existed an invincible repul- 
 sion towards the queen mother. There was no more so- 
 cial intercourse betwen them than the ceremonious polite- 
 ness exacted by rigorous court etiquette. And Catherine 
 repaid the young Scotch girl's repugnance with a hatred as 
 intense as that of Elizabeth. If for nothing else, she hated 
 Mary because she was a Guise. In later years, more than 
 once in her sad calamities Mary Stuart would have left 
 Scotland to take refuge in France but for the presence and 
 influence of the queen mother. 
 
 With Catherine's accession to power in the name of the 
 boy king Charles IX. (ten years of age), a new existence 
 was opened to her. 
 
 * Accustomed to neglect, slights, suspicion, and hatred, she 
 was surprised at any manifestation of deference and re- 
 spect.^ Power once assured to her, she for the first time 
 stood revealed to the world as the Catherine de Medicis 
 known to modern history. And then followed the " polit- 
 ical iniquities " spoken of by Mr. Fronde. If Catherine was 
 a mere cipher during her husband's reign, she was, if possi- 
 ble, of still less importance after the accession of Francis 
 II., Mary Stuart's first husband. Sismondi describes her 
 as not certam either of his obedience or his respect, and 
 
 1 See Appendix No. 1. 
 
 2 " La plus belle ; la plus aimable, la plus gracleuse personne de la cour." 
 Martin, vol. x. p. 1. 
 
 3 See Appendix No. 2. 
 
28 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Mr. Fronde is very nearly correct in saying (vii. 310), 
 that " Catherine who in the reign of Francis had seen the 
 honor of the throne given to the Queen of Scots and the 
 power of the throne to the Duke of Guise and his brothers, 
 had wrongs of her own to avenge." 
 
 And yet, full well knowing that her uncles, the Guises, 
 held the power, our historian constantly misrepresents this 
 innocent girl Mary as the originator and executor of all 
 their political moves and combinations, — such as the as- 
 sumption of the arms of England and the refusal to ratify 
 the treaty of Leith. He describes her as solely occupied 
 with ambitious projects of which she had no conception, 
 and desirous of reaching Scotland rapidly, " with a purpose 
 as fixed as the stars." The historical fact is that she had 
 neither intention nor wish to go to Scotland as its queen. 
 Even Mignet ^ admits that she went " less from choice than 
 from necessity." ^ Her mother was dead, and now all her 
 affections, all her hopes were in France. Catherine's hatred 
 for her was now no longer a secret for any one, and Mary, 
 after the burial of her husband, went into retirement in 
 Lorraine, far away from the court. Not long was she al- 
 lowed to remain, for her uncles forced her to go to Scot- 
 land, and she embarked broken-hearted and in tears.^ 
 
 In view of the immeasurable advantage possessed by 
 Mr. Froude in his positive knowledge of all that was pass- 
 ing in the mind of Mary Stuart more than three hundred 
 years ago, we almost feel ashamed to cite in contradiction 
 the testimony of such historians as Sismondi and Martin 
 (" History crowned by the French Institute "), who bring to 
 
 1 See Appendix No. 3. 
 
 2 Even Ch^ruel {Marie Stuart et Catherine de Medicis) says, " Mary- 
 Stuart was forced to leave her adopted France to return to her native 
 country," and he speaks of Catherine as one, "qui n'avait jamais aime Ma- 
 rie Stuart." 
 
 Castelnaii in his Memoirs referring to the forced departure of the young 
 Queen, says: La reine mere trouva fort bon et expedient de s'en ddfaire. 
 
 3 Sr« Appendix No. 4. 
 
INTROSPECTIVE POWER. 
 
 29 
 
 their task, erudition, research, and judgment, without a tit- 
 tle of psychological intuition. Their system is not that of 
 pur modern English historian. They read ancient books, 
 old letters, and musty documents. He reads the heart ; and 
 " she had anticipated," " she wrapped her disappoint- 
 ment," "she was going to use her charms as a spell," 
 " to weave the fibres of a conspiracy," " to control herself, 
 to hide her purpose," " with a purpose as fixed as the 
 stars," are mild specimens of his power of retrospective 
 psychological introspection. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 " Son dducation extremement soignde avait ajoutd des talents varies k 
 ses graces natu relies." — Mignet. 
 
 Some well-meaning friends of Mary Stuart's memory, 
 victims of the historic delusion concerning the so-called 
 " court of Catherine de Medicis," seek to palliate the 
 case which they weakly accept as made against her, by 
 pleading the bad influences and " the errors of a French 
 education," to which her youth was subjected. No such 
 defense is needed. Here is the plain historical record. 
 The first six years of her life were spent in Scotland un- 
 der the care of the fondest of mothers and most admirable 
 of women. 
 
 Instructed by Erskine and Alexander Scott, the child 
 learned geography, history, and Latin, with needle-work and 
 embroidery from her governess Lady Fleming. The prog- 
 ress of the little scholar was rapid. From the time of 
 her arrival in France (August 20, 1548) she was placed 
 under the care of her grandmother, the austere Antoinette 
 de Bourbon, and of the learned Margaret of France,^ sis- 
 ter of Henry IL, the protectress of Michel de I'Hopital. 
 
 Cardinal Lorraine took charge of her education, and 
 had appointed as her governess Madame Parois, a lady of 
 such well-known piety as to be called a devotee. She was 
 morose and strict to harshness. 
 
 Mary's application to her studies absorbed all her time. 
 Her proficiency in Latin and Italian was wonderful. " She 
 both spoke and understood Latin admirably well," says 
 
 i"Sopra tutto erudita, e ben dotta nella lingua latina, greca, et auche 
 italiana " — Marino Cavalli. 
 
MARY'S MARRIAGE. 
 
 31 
 
 BrantOme. Her progress in Greek, geography, and his- 
 tory was also great, and she excelled in needle-work. Her 
 uncle the king loved her as dearly as his own children, 
 and thinking her application to study too close, Avould 
 frequently take her off to his chateau at Meudon, where, 
 mounted, she would accompany him to the chase. 
 
 At the age of eleven, while still pursuing her studies 
 witli energy, a separate royal establishment was created for 
 her, and from this time she had to receive deputations, 
 addresses, and appeals from the rival parties in Scotland. 
 The discreetness and modesty of her bearing elicited ad- 
 miration. Her Scotch nurse Janet Kemp, and Janet's 
 husband John Kemp, as valet de chamhre, were nearest 
 her person ; and the Earl of Livingstone and Lord Erskine 
 her two lord keepers, with a large retinue of young 
 Scotch nobles, acting as gentlemen in waiting, as equer- 
 ries, and pages were in constant attendance upon her. 
 
 At the age of sixteen Mary was united in marriage to 
 the young Francis of Valois, to whom she had long been 
 betrothed. The young people had grown up together in 
 youthful affection. Buchanan, whose veracity and sincerity 
 are so highly praised by Mr. Fronde, speaks of the — 
 
 " Awful majesty her carriage bears: 
 Maturely grave even in her tender years." 
 
 Mignet tells us of " Son aspect noble et gracieux." 
 
 Mary was then the cynosure of all eyes, the rising regal 
 sun ; but ten short years later, betrayed, dethroned, and in 
 prison. 
 
 After her marriage Mary continued to read Latin with 
 Buchanan, history with De Pasquier, and poetry with 
 Ronsard. Her serious illness at this time was greatly ag- 
 gravated by the mental distress occasioned by the news 
 from Scotland concernin<j the devastation and ruin wrou(jht 
 by the so-called Reformers (Knox says it was "the rascal 
 multitude"), who tore down, burned, and destroyed palaces, 
 cathedrals, monasteries, and libraries. The English Am- 
 
32 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 bassador reported, " The Scottish Queen looketh very ill, 
 very sallow, and therewithal short-breathed. It is whis- 
 pered that she cannot live." And this was the commence- 
 ment of a series of illnesses which never left her. 
 
 Mr. Froude strives throughout his work to give the im- 
 pression that Mary Stuart had the robust health of a hunter 
 and the constitution of a coal-heaver, when, in point of 
 fact, she was rarely ever exempt from physical ailment 
 and suffering. 
 
 Henry 11. of France died July 10, 1559. Francis TI. 
 was crowned in September, and now Mary became the 
 young French Queen. For the time she forgot in her 
 own affliction her antipathy to her uncle's widow, and 
 the kind and sympathizi:ng attentions of Mary and Francis 
 were remarked by all. 
 
 But Catherine's grief came to sudden termination on 
 finding that she could not rule the young king, her son,^ 
 and that all state affairs were disposed of by the young 
 queen's uncles. Catherine had all the good-will to injure 
 Mary ; but attack would have been useless, for her reputa- 
 tion was invulnerable. The purity of her life and manners 
 was known of all ; her influence for honor and morality 
 was as clearly recognized as that of Catherine for the con- 
 trary ; nor has Mary's most malignant enemy dared to con- 
 nect her name with any tale of scandal during all her 
 residence in France. 
 
 Meanwhile, her health still sank, and the English Am- 
 bassador reports her " fallen sick again so that, at even 
 song, she was for faintness constrained to be led to her 
 chamber, where she swooned twice or thrice." 
 
 The dislike of Catherine for her son Francis increased, 
 and she tampered with his political enemies, although 
 openly caressing him.^ Francis died in December, 1560. 
 
 1 Sismondi. 
 
 2 Regnier de la Planche, the Protestant historian of the reign of Francis 
 11., speaking of the Guises and Catherine, says : " lis savaient son natiirel 
 
MARY STUART AT KIGHTEKN. 
 
 33 
 
 Mary Stuart is tliiLS prescMitecl by our English historian : 
 " She was not yet nineteen years old ; but mind and body 
 had matured amidst the scenes in which she passed her 
 girlhood." (vii. 2G8.) This is at once a very remarkable 
 statement and a mild specimen of Mr. F'roude's command 
 of ambiguous language. Very close and philosophical ob- 
 servers have, we think, occasionally noticed the phenome- 
 non indicated ; and although it might not at once occur to 
 every one that young girls usually mature amidst the scenes 
 of their girlhood, yet it was hardly worth the effort of a 
 philosophic historian to astonish us with so startling a dis- 
 covery. But we suspect Mr. Froude of a deeper meaning, 
 namely, that mind and body had then — at eighteen years 
 — attained their full growth, and that Mary Stuart, at the 
 tender age of eighteen, was abnormal and monstrous. It 
 means that, or it is mere twaddle. 
 
 The writer drives his entering wedge so noiselessly that 
 you are scarce aware of it, and in the development of the 
 story he strains all his faculties to paint the Queen of 
 Scots, not only as the worst and most abandoned of women, 
 but as absolutely destitute of human semblance in her 
 superhuman wickedness. That such is the effect of his 
 portraiture, is well expressed by an English critic — a 
 friend of Mr. Froude, but not of Mary : " A being so 
 earthly, sensual, and devilish seems almost beyond the pro- 
 portions of human nature." ^ 
 
 Mr. Froude then gives us a portrait of the young Scot- 
 tish Queen, in which (vii. 368) the little that might be to 
 her credit is vapory and ambiguous, and the insinuations 
 to her injury are as sharp as a definition. Those who ap- 
 preciate the character of Mary Stuart will smile at the fol- 
 lowing handsome concession : " In intellectual gifts, Mary 
 Stuart was at least Elizabeth's equal." But then, per con^ 
 
 §tre de caresser ceux qui la roudoyaient ; raais ils se fiaient nullement a 
 ses caresses," and elsewhere he refers to her " larmes de crocodile." 
 1 Lcnidon Times, September 26tli, 18GG. 
 3 
 
34 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 tra : " In the deeper and nobler emotions she had neither 
 share nor sympathy ; " and herein, it is explained, " lay the 
 difference between the Queen of Scots and Elizabeth." 
 
 Throckmorton, a clever and experienced diplomatist, was 
 near Mary in France for many years, and, with the fullest 
 means of information, advised Elizabeth day by day con- 
 cerning her. She is the subject of scores of his dispatches, 
 with none of which, however, are we favored by Mr. 
 Froude. Throckmorton thus announces to Cecil Mary's 
 condition after the death of King Francis : — 
 
 " He departed to God, leaving as heavy and dolorous a wife as 
 of good right she had reason to be, who, by long watching with 
 him during his sickness, and by painful diligence about him, 
 especially the issue thereof, is not in the best time of her body 
 but without danger." 
 
 But Mr. Froude, ready to reveal for our entertainment the 
 inmost thoughts of this " dolorous wife," enlightens us with 
 his exclusive information that " Mary was speculating be- 
 fore the body was cold on her next choice." Throckmorton, 
 all unconscious of the annoyance he must give a nineteenth 
 century historian, again writes to Cecil : — 
 
 " Since her husband's death she hath shown, and so continueth, 
 that she is of great wisdom for her years, modesty, and also of 
 great judgment in the wise handling herself and her matters, 
 which, increasing in her with her years, cannot but turn to her 
 commendation, reputation, honor," and great profit to her coun- 
 try." 
 
 He continues : — 
 
 " I see her behavior to be such, and her wisdom and queenly 
 modesty so great, in that she thinketh herself not too wise, but is 
 content to be ruled by good counsel and wise men." 
 
 Fully to appreciate Throckmorton^s means of informa- 
 tion, it must be borne in mind that the ambassador of that 
 day was an official spy upon the court to which he was ac- 
 credited, and to his own sovereign fulfilled the duties of the 
 special newspaper correspondent of the year 1871 in gath- 
 
MARY Stuart's diplomacy. 
 
 35 
 
 ering up and reporting every item of interesting news. If 
 a word had ever been said in France against the young 
 Mary Stuart, we would have found it reported by Throck- 
 morton, if by no one else. 
 
 Much is made by our historian of what he represents to , 
 be Mary's cunning diplomacy with Elizabeth's minister. 
 
 If Mary had been the "actress," the woman of "craft" 
 Mr. Froude makes of her, she might readily have smoothed 
 over the difficulty with Elizabeth and obtained what she 
 wanted by intimating the possibility of her embracing the 
 Protestant faith. Throckmorton had been specially in- 
 structed to sound her on this important question, and it 
 would have been easy for Mary, without committing her- 
 self, to listen attentively, appear to be impressed, and 
 promise to take the matter into serious consideration. Soon 
 afterwards, according to Mr. Froude, she was a " consum- 
 mate actress." On this occasion she certainly was not, for 
 she stopped Throckmorton on the very threshold of his 
 " sounding," thus : — 
 
 " I will be plain with you : the religion which I profess, I take 
 to be the most acceptable to God ; and indeed, neither do I know, 
 nor desire to know, any other. I have been brought up in this 
 religion, and who might credit me in anything if I might show 
 myself Hght in this case ? " 
 
 She concluded : — 
 
 " You may perceive that I am none of those that will change 
 my religion every year ; and as I told you in the beginning, I 
 mean to constrain none of my subjects, but would wish they 
 were all as I am ; and I trust they shall have no support to con- 
 strain me." 
 
 M. Mignet, quite as decided an enemy of Mary Stuart 
 as Mr. Froude, is, nevertheless, too much at home in 
 French history to perpetrate the blunders of his English 
 ally. Of the influence of Catherine de Medicis he has, 
 of course, not a word. He accords Mary fair credit for 
 
36 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 her intellectual and moral charms, and for her application 
 to serious studies. 
 
 As to the political acts signed by Mary, under the in- 
 fluence of the Guises, and which are represented by Mr. 
 Froude as wholly due to Mary Stuart's precocious states- 
 manship, M. Mignet has the fairness to admit that she 
 cannot be reproached with them because of her youth and 
 her dependence upon others (a laquelle on ne saurait re- 
 procher cette faute, tant elle etait encore jeune et liviee 
 aux volontes d'autrui) ; and he thus indicates the first ap- 
 pearance of Catherine de Medicis on the political stage: 
 " With Charles IX. opened a new system, under the crafty 
 direction of Catherine de Medicis, who feared the Guises, 
 hated Mary Stuart," etc. (i. 91.) 
 
 Had it been possible for Mr. Froude to produce one 
 word of testimony from France concerning Mary Stuart's 
 youth that was not of respect, praise, and admiration, from 
 friend or foe, he surely would not have failed to cite it. 
 
 In this dilemma, he travels all the way to Scotland and 
 quotes* Randolph, Elizabeth's agent (vii. 369), to show 
 her craft and deceit ; " adding, " Such was Mary Stuart 
 when on the 14th of Auo;ust she embarked for Scotland." 
 
 But Randolph at that time had never seen Mary Stuart, 
 and the date of his letter cited by Mr. Froude is October 
 27th. Under these circumstances it becomes interesting 
 to know what Randolph's opinion of Mary really was be- 
 fore she left France. Randolph writes to Cecil, August 
 9th, referring to Mary's preparations for departure, " That 
 will be a stout adventure for a sick, crazed woman." 
 
 Mary's application to Elizabeth for a safe conduct had 
 been publicly refused in so unseemly and discourteous a 
 manner as to create some scandal at the English court. 
 Elizabeth fitly completed the insult by ordering her fleet 
 to intercept and capture Mary. Throckmorton thus re- 
 ports to Elizabeth herself the young Scotch Queen's re- 
 ception of the refusal. " It seemeth," she said, " she 
 
MMIY SAILS FOR SCOTLAND. 
 
 37 
 
 nmketh more account of the amity of my disobedient 
 subjects than she doth of me their sovereign, who am her 
 equal in degree, though inferior in wisdom and experience ; 
 her nearest kinswoman and her nearest neighbor. But, 
 Mr. Ambassador, it will be thought very strange amongst 
 all princes and countries that she should first animate my 
 subjects against me ; and second, being a widow, to im- 
 peach my going into my own country. I ask her nothing 
 but friendship. I do not trouble her state, nor practice 
 with her subjects. The Queen, your mistress, doth say 
 that I am young and do lack experience ; but I trust that 
 my discretion shall not so fail me, that my passion shall 
 move me to use other language of her than it becometh of 
 a queen and my nearest kinswoman." A lesson more 
 complete and dignified on honesty and decent conduct 
 Elizabeth probably never received. Mary concluded by 
 saying that she trusted that the wind might prove favor- 
 able ; but if not, she might be driven on the English shore 
 and placed in Elizabeth's power. " And if," continued 
 Mary, " she be so hard-hearted as to desire my end, she 
 then may do her pleasure. Peradventure that might be 
 better for me than to live." Her foreboding was prophetic. 
 
 Even for a sea voyage, Mr. Froude continues to prefer 
 a microscope to a telescope. The consequence is, that out 
 of an escort of Mary's three uncles, all her ladies, includ- 
 ing the four Marys, more than a hundred French noble- 
 men, the Mareschal d'Amville, Brantome the historian, and 
 other distinguished men, a doctor of theology, two physi- 
 cians, and all her household retinue, he can discern no one 
 but Chatelar, who was, as a retainer of d'Amville, in that 
 nobleman's suite. And so we read, " With adieu, belle 
 France, sentimental verses, and a passionate Chatelar 
 sighing at her feet in melodious music, she sailed away 
 over the summer seas." We must in candor admit this 
 to be a sweetly pretty passage, although open to some ob- 
 jections ; for even if Chatelar were on the vessel, which is 
 
38 
 
 MAEY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 "more than doubtful, the historians of the period have made 
 no record of his sighing, and there was positively no music 
 but the sound of Mary Stuart's sobbing and weeping. 
 
 But in the next paragraph Mr. Froude puts away senti- 
 mentality, means business, and throws a bright light- on a 
 previous line : " Elizabeth could feel like a man an un- 
 selfish interest in a great cause." Here is the paragraph, 
 admirable in every respect : — 
 
 " The English fleet was on her track. There was no command 
 to arrest her ; yet there was the thought that ' she might be met 
 withal ; ' and if the admiral had sent her ship with its freight 
 to the bottom of the North Sea, ' being done unknown,' Eliza- 
 beth, and perhaps Catherine de Medicis as well, ' would have 
 found it afterward well done.' " (vii. 370.) 
 
 Of course, if " done unknown " it would have been "well 
 done ; " because " in the deeper and nobler emotions Mary 
 had neither share nor sympathy;" whereas Elizabeth and 
 Catherine de Medicis had. 
 
 In the kindness of her heart, Mary Stuart's mother had 
 made the great mistake of allowing James Stewart to ac- 
 company his little sister to France. James Stewart was 
 brought up with the young Mary, and she looked confid- 
 ingly to the playmate and friend of her happy, childish 
 Scotch days. He was sufficiently young to enlist all her 
 sisterly affection, and old enough (ten years her senior) to 
 be her trusted friend and guide. We shall presently see 
 him become " the stainless Murray " of Mr. Fronde's 
 pages. At twenty he was already the paid and pensioned 
 spy of Elizabeth and the betrayer of his sister. Even 
 Mignet admits that he was " not incapable of dissimulation 
 and treachery." A dispatch of Throckmorton to Elizabeth 
 {7iot referred to in Froude) reveals the nature of this 
 " stainless " gentleman's doings in France : — 
 
 " The Lord James came to my lodgings secretly unto me, and 
 declared unto me at good length all that had passed between the 
 Queen, his sister, and him, and between the Cardinal Lorraine 
 
JAMES STEWART. 
 
 39 
 
 and him, the circumstances whereof he will declare to your maj- 
 esty particularly when he cometh to your presence." 
 
 This business call of Lord James was made during 
 Mary's preparations to leave France for Scotland. He 
 followed it up with a confidential visit of some days to 
 Elizabeth in London, although Mary had specially desired 
 his escprt to Scotland, and earnestly requested that he 
 should not go by England. Unsuspicious of his treachery, 
 Mary heaped honors and riches upon him, made him her 
 first lord of council, and created him successively Earl of 
 Mar and Earl of Murray, 
 
 838 19 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 ARRIVAL IN SCOTLAND. 
 
 *' It often seems to me as if History was like a child's box of letters, with 
 which we can spell any word we please." — iihort Studies on Great Sub- 
 jects,hy James Anthony Feoude, p. 7. 
 
 The unclisi^uted record of Mary's arrival in Edinburgh 
 is, that her surpassing beauty and charm of address, aris- 
 ing not so much from her courtly training as her kindly 
 heart, created a profound impression on a people who al- 
 ready reverenced in her a descendant of the heroic Bruce, 
 and the daughter of a popular king, and of one of the noblest 
 and best of women. The young Queen soon won the hearts 
 of the people of Edinburgh by her sweetness and grace. 
 
 The Scottish historian Robertson says, " The beauty and 
 gracefulness of her person drew universal admiration ; the 
 elegance and politeness of her manners commanded gen- 
 eral respect. To all the charms of her sex, she added 
 many accomplishments of the other. The progress she 
 had made in all the arts and sciences was far beyond what 
 is commonly attained by princes." 
 
 Mr. Froude thus renders this record : " The dreaded 
 harlot of Babylon seemed only a graceful and innocent 
 girl." (vii. 374.) In common fairness, Mr. Froude should 
 have given some adequate idea of the condition of the 
 country this inexperienced young queen was called to rule. 
 This he fails to do. It was such that the ablest sovereign, 
 with full supply of money and of soldiers — and Mary 
 Stuart had neither ^ — would have found its successful gov- 
 ernment almost impossible. 
 
 1 " While every head of a considerable family down to the humble land- 
 
THE SCOTCH NOBLES. 
 
 41 
 
 The power of the feudal aristocracy had declined in 
 Europe everywhere but in Scotland ; and everywhere but 
 in Scotland royal power had been increased. .For cen- 
 turies the Scottish kings had striven to break down the 
 power of the nobles, which overshadowed that of the 
 crown. One of the results of this struggle is quaintly re- 
 corded in the opening entry of Birrel's Diurnal of Occur- 
 rents " : — 
 
 " There has been in this realm of Scotland one hundred and 
 five kings, of whilk there was slaine fyftie-six." 
 
 Another result was greater aristocratic power and in- 
 9. creased anarchy. Robertson, indeed, pictures his country 
 at that time as "in a state of pure anarchy," — " when the 
 administration fell into the hands of a young queen, not 
 nineteen years of age, unacquainted with the manners and 
 laws of her country, a stranger to her subjects, without ex- 
 perience, without allies, and without a friend." The Scotch 
 feudal nobles had never known what it was to be under the 
 rule of law, and there was as yet no middle class to aid the 
 sovereign. Among their recognized practices and privi- 
 leges were private war and armed conspiracy ; and the es- 
 tablished means of ridding themselves of personal or pub- 
 lic enemies was assassination. 
 
 This insubordination of the Scotch aristocracy was of 
 itself sufficient to render any royal rule a task of stupen- 
 dous difficulty. Unfortunately for this young girl queen, 
 two other causes combined therewith made it simply im- 
 possible : these were, first, the jealous enmity of the Eng- 
 lish government, which, with men, money, spies, and plots 
 never ceased its work ; and, second, the most potent and 
 dangerous, because the least tangible, the religious hatred 
 born of the Reformation. 
 
 Of itself, either of these causes might have been suffi- 
 
 owner, had some regular armed following, the crown alone had none. 
 .... All Mary's efforts to establish a royal guard were sternly resisted." . 
 — Burton, History of Scotland, vol. iv. p. 174. 
 
42 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 cient. Combined, — and they were coinbincd with skill, 
 judgment, and rancorous fervor of ferocity, — the result 
 was simply a question of time. And short the time was. 
 Mary landed in Scotland in August, 1561, and in June, 
 1567, was a dethroned prisoner at Lochleven. 
 
 In all history we find few bands of worse men than those 
 who surrounded the throne of Mary Stuart. Cruelty, 
 treachery, and cunning were their leading characteristics- 
 Some of them were Protestants in their own peculiar way, 
 and, as John Knox says, referring to the disposition of the 
 church lands, " for their own commoditie." 
 
 Personally, they are thus described by Burton, the latest 
 historian of Scotland, a bitter opponent of Mary Stuart : — 
 
 " Their dress was that of the camp or stable ; they were dirty 
 in person, and abrupt and disrespectful in manner, carrying on 
 their disputes, and even fighting out their fierce quarrels, in the 
 presence of royalty." 
 
 Mary came to reign over S, country virtually in the power 
 of a band of violent and rapacious lords, long in rebellion 
 against their king. Of the five royal Jameses, three had 
 perished, victims of aristocratic anarchy. The personal 
 piety of these rebellious lords was infinitesimal ; but they 
 had an enormous appreciation of Henry YIII.'s plunder of 
 the monasteries and division of the church lands among 
 the nobles, and desired to see Scotland submitted to the 
 same regimen — they, of course, becoming ardent Re- 
 formers. 
 
 In view of the picturesque statement that IMary Stuart 
 went to Scotland with a " resolution as fixed as the stars to 
 trample down the Reformation," her first public acts are of 
 great interest. Mr. Froude states them so imperfectly (vii. 
 374) that they make but slight impression. The friends 
 of her mother and the Catholic nobles expected to be 
 called into her councils. Instead of them, " to the surprise 
 of all men," says Mr. Froude, she selected the Lord James 
 
MARY STUART AND JOHN KNOX. 
 
 43 
 
 (lier half-brother) and Maitland as her chief ministers, with 
 a large majority of Protestant lords in her council. She 
 threw herself upon tlie loyalty of her people, and issued a 
 proclamation forbidding any attempt to interfere with the 
 Protestant religion which she found established in her 
 realm. She did not plead, as is stated, that she might 
 have her own service in the royal chapel, but claimed it as 
 a right expressly guaranteed. " The Lord Lindsay might 
 croak out texts that the idolater should die the death." 
 (vii. 375.) 
 
 That was a truly energetic " croak " ! Listen to it (not 
 in Froude). When service in the Queen's chapel was about 
 to begin, Lindsay, clad in full armor and brandishing his 
 sword, rushed forward shouting, " The idolater priest shall 
 die the death ! " The almoner, fortunately for himself, 
 heard the " croak," took refuge, and after the service was 
 protected to his home by two lords ; " and then," says Knox, 
 " the godly departed with great grief of heart." 
 
 The interview between the young Queen and John Knox 
 is narrated by Mr. Froude in such a manner as to tone 
 down the coarseness of Knox's conduct, and lessen the 
 brilliancy of the dialectic victory of the young Scotch girl 
 over the old priest and minister. She first inquired about 
 his " Blast against the Regiment of Women," in which he 
 declares, — 
 
 " This monstriferous empire of women, among all the enormi- 
 ties that do this day abound upon the face of the whole earth, 
 is most detestable and damnable. Even men subject to the 
 counsel or empire of their wives are unworthy of all public 
 office." 
 
 Mr. Froude describes Knox as saying, " Daniel and St. 
 Paul." He ought to know that a Scotch Puritan could 
 not have said Saint Paul. " Daniel and St. Paul were not 
 of the religion of Nebuchadnezzar and Nero." (vii. 376.) 
 Incorrect. Knox having first modestly likened himself 
 unto Plato, thus states his own language : " I shall be alse 
 
44 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 weall content to lyve under your grace as Paull was to 
 lyve under Nero." It is hard to say which is greater, the 
 man's vanity in comparing himself to St. Paul, or his in- 
 tolerable insolence in likening, to her face, the young Queen 
 to the bloodiest of all Roman tyrants. William Cobbett, 
 a writer of sturdy and unadulterated English, in referring 
 to some such performance as this on the part of Knox, 
 calls him " the Ruffian of the Reformation." We strongly 
 suspect, though, that Knox did not use language so grossly 
 offensive, although Mr. Burton refers to the " relentless 
 bigotry of the narrator." (iv. 180.) His account of the 
 interview was written years afterward. He was self- 
 complacent and boastful, and in other places says that he 
 caused the Queen to weep so bitterly that a page could 
 scarce get her enough handkerchiefs to dry her eyes. Ran- 
 dolph might well write to Cecil, " She is patient to bear, 
 and beareth nuich ; " and Lethington might truthfully de- 
 clare, " Surely, in her comporting with him, she doth declare 
 a wisdom far exceeding her years." Before Mary, Knox 
 claimed that Daniel and his fellows, although subjects to 
 Nebuchadnezzar and to Darius, would not yet be of the re- 
 ligion of the one nor the other. Mary was ready with her 
 answer, and retorted, " Yea ; but none of these men raised 
 the sword against their princes." Mr. Froude, of course, 
 reports this reply in such a manner as to spoil it ; adding, 
 But Knox answered merely that ' God had not given them 
 the power.' " Not so ; for Knox strove by logical play, which 
 he himself records, to show that resistance and non-com- 
 pliance were one and the same thing. " Throughout the 
 whole dialogue," says Burton, " he does not yield the 
 faintest shred of liberty of conscience." But Mary kept 
 him to his text, repeating, " But yet they resisted not with 
 the sword." And then, this young woman, who, we are as- 
 siu'ed, came to Scotland v/ith " spells to weave conspira- 
 cies," "to control herself and to hide her purpose," bursts 
 into tears and blunderingly tells Knox that she believed 
 " the Church of Rome was the true Church of God." 
 
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION. 
 
 45 
 
 All interview between the Queen and Knox in December, 
 1562, in which Mr. Fioude describes Knox's rudeness as 
 " sound northern courtesy " (vii. 543), is passed over by him * 
 with commendable rapidity. And of yet another inter- 
 view he says not a word. We will rehite it. 
 
 Under the statute of 1560 proceedings were taken in 
 1563 against Mary's subjects in the west of Scotland for 
 attending mass. 
 
 The wilds of Ayrshire, in later years the resort of per- 
 secuted Presbyterians, were the resort of persecuted Cath- 
 olics. " On the bleak moorlands or beneath the shelter of 
 some friendly roof," says Mr. Hosack,^ "they worshipped 
 in secret according to the faith of their fathers." Zealous 
 Reformers waited not for form of law to attack and disperse 
 the " idolaters," when they found them thus engaged. 
 Mary remonstrated with Knox against these lawless pro- 
 ceedings, and argued for freedom of worship, or, as Knox 
 himself states it, " no to pitt haunds to punish ony man for 
 using himsel in his religion as he pleases." But the Scotch 
 Reformer applauded the outrage, and even asserted that 
 private individuals might even " slay with their own hands 
 idolaters and enemies of the true religion," quoting Scrip- 
 ture to prove his assertions.^ Shortly afterward forty-eight 
 
 1 Mary Queen of Scots and her Accusers. Embracing a narrative of 
 events from the death of James V., in 1542, until the death of the Regent 
 Murray, in 1570. By John Hosack, Barrister-at-law. An admirable work 
 in every respect. No more valuable contribution to the history of Mary 
 Stuart and her period has been made. The author, a native Scot, is en- 
 tirely at home in the customs, localities, laws, and history of his country, 
 and throws light on many interesting points heretofore left in obscurity by 
 English historians. He has also discovered several valuable original doc- 
 uments, now for the first time published. The work is written in a tone of 
 calm legal discussion, and with historical dignity. Its important aid in the 
 preparation of this book is hereby cheerfully acknowledged. 
 
 ^ He had previously denounced his sovereign from the pulpit as an in- 
 corrigible idolatress, and an enemy whose death would be a public bless- 
 ing. Randolph writes to Cecil, February, 15G4, " They pray that God will 
 either turn her lieart or send her a short life; " adding, " Of what charity 
 or spirit this proceedcth, I leave to be discussed by the great divines." 
 
46 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Catholics were arraigned before the High Court of Jus- 
 ticiary for assisting at mass, and punished by imprison- 
 ment. 
 
 At page 384 (vii.) we are told by Mr. Froude that the 
 Protestant mob drove the priest from the altar (royal 
 chapel), " with broken head and bloody ears ; " and at page 
 418, that " the measure of virtue in the Scotch ministers 
 was the audacity with which they would reproach the 
 Queen." " Maitland protested that theirs was not language 
 for subjects to use to their sovereign," and there really ap- 
 pears to be something in the suggestion ; but Mr. Froude 
 is of the opinion that " essentially, after all, Knox was 
 right," ^ clinching it with — " He suspected that Mary 
 Stuart meant mischief to the Reformation, and she did 
 mean mischief." And this is the key to Mr. Froude's 
 main argument throughout this history. "Whoever and 
 whatever favors the Reformation is essentially good ; who- 
 ever and whatever opposes it is essentially vile. And the 
 end (the Reformation) justifies the means. 
 
 Far be it from us to gainsay the perfect propriety of an 
 occasional supply of sacerdotal broken heads and bloody 
 ears, if a Protestant mob sees fit to fancy such an amuse- 
 ment ; or to question the measure of virtue in the Scotch 
 ministers ; or to approve of the absurd protest of Mait- 
 land ; or, least of all, not swiftly to recognize that " essen- 
 tially " Knox was right. But we really must be excused 
 for venturing to suggest — merely to suggest — that, in the 
 first place, if we assume such a line of argument, we de- 
 prive ourselves of weapons wherewith to assail the cruel- 
 ties of such men as Alva and Philip of Spain. Surely, 
 the right does not essentially go with the power to perse- 
 cute ! And in the second place, that this was rather 
 rough treatment for a young and inexperienced girl, against 
 
 1 He is elsewhere (v. 440) of the ophiion that " Knox was not always 
 just," and instances his outrageous falsehoods concerning Gardiner and 
 the Marquis of Winchester. 
 
LESSON IN HISTORICAL WRITING. 
 
 47 
 
 whom thus far nothing has been shown. But here, confi- 
 dently met with Harlot of Babylon," we are again silenced. 
 In his sermons, Knox openly denounced Mary, not only 
 as an incorrigible idolatress, but as an enemy whose death 
 would be a public boon. In equally savage style he fulmi- 
 nated against the amusements of the court, and dwelt 
 especially on the deadly sin of dancing. And yet Knox — 
 we nmst in candor admit it — was not totally indifferent to 
 some social amenities, for he was then paying his addresses 
 to a young girl of sixteen, whom he afterward married. 
 
 Maitland absurdly hinted to Knox that if he had a 
 grievance he should complain of it modestly, and was very 
 properly hooted at by Knox in reply. And thereupon 
 comes a fine passage admirably exemplifying the psycho- 
 logical treatment of history (vii. 419) : — 
 
 " Could she but secure first the object on which her heart was 
 fixed, she could indemnify herself afterward at her leisure. The 
 preachers might rail, the fierce lords might conspire ; a little 
 danger gave piquancy to Ufe, and the air-drawn crowns which 
 floated before her imagination would pay for it all." 
 
 We do not know how this may affect other people, but 
 " air-drawn crowns " did the business for us, and we pro- 
 ceed to make it the text for a lesson in historical writing. 
 
 Mr. Froude may or may not have transferred the con- 
 tempt and hatred of France of the sixteenth century, 
 which throughout his book he loses no opportunity of 
 manifesting, to France of the nineteenth century ; but we 
 venture to suggest to him that he can find across the 
 channel models and principles of historical treatment 
 which he might study with signal profit. Specially would 
 we commend to his lection and serious perpension the fol- 
 lowing pithy passage from the very latest published volume 
 of French history. We refer to Lanfrey's " Histoire de Na- 
 poleon I." The author describes the meeting of Napoleon 
 and Alexander at Tilsit, and, referring to the absurd at- 
 tempt made by some writers to explain the motives which 
 
48 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 actuated the French and Russian emperors at their private 
 interview on the Niemen, makes this sensible reflection : 
 
 " II est toujours dangereux et souvent pueril de vouloir 
 interpreter les sentiments secrets des personnages histo- 
 riques."^ Our English historian's attention to this teach- 
 ing would rapidly suppress " air-drawn crowns " and such 
 like trashy stage properties, so freely used by him for dra- 
 matic effect. 
 
 On Mary's arrival in Scotland, every one was surprised 
 that she should select for her chief state councilor her 
 half-brother, the Lord James, instead of the Earl of 
 Huntly. No one knew that Mary had been craftily per- 
 suaded by James that Huntly was not loyal. The plan of 
 her brother was as wicked as it was deep. It was at once 
 to deprive Mary of a loyal adviser and a powerful friend, 
 and to raise his own fortunes on Huntly's ruin. It is curi- 
 ous to see how all this affair is ingeniously misrepresented 
 by Mr. Froude. Yielding to James's solicitations, begun 
 years before, Mary, after creating him Earl of Mar, created 
 him Earl of Murray. But this latter title he did not wish 
 to assert until he could obtain the lands appertaining to 
 the title, which he had procured while living in ostensible 
 friendship with the man he had doomed to ruin. The 
 lands were in Huntly's possession, and Murray made up his 
 mind to have them. " But Huntly," says Mr. Froude, 
 " had refused to part with them." Astounding ! Refuse to 
 part with what was his own ? Who was Huntly ? He 
 was earl chancellor of the kingdom, a man aged fifty-two, a 
 powerful Catholic nobleman, with no stain on his escutch- 
 eon who could bring twenty thousand spears into the 
 field. He had done good service for Mary's mother 
 against the English. English gold had not stained his 
 palm. He was a man marked for saying that he liked not 
 
 1 " The attempt to make one's self the interpreter of the secret senti- 
 ments of historical personages is always dangerous and frequently ridicu- 
 lous." — Lanfrey, vol. iv. 403, Paris, 1870. 
 
THE EARL OF HUNTLY. 
 
 49 
 
 the " manner of Henry VlII.'s wooing." He had wanted 
 Mary to land at Aberdeen, was at the head of the loyal 
 party on Mary's arrival, and had sought to warn her of her 
 brother's craft and ambition. Mr. Froude thus describes 
 him (vii. 454) : — 
 
 " Of all the reactionary noblemen in Scotland the most power- 
 ful and dangerous i was notoriously the Earl of Huntly. It was 
 Huntly who had proposed the landing at Aberdeen. In his own 
 house the chief of the house of Gordon had never so much as 
 affected to comply with the change of religion," etc. 
 
 What depravity ! Would not change his religion, nor 
 even have the decency to affect to comply ! Positively an 
 atrocious character ! It is evident that the lands of such a 
 wretch as Huntly ought to be given to one so " God-fear- 
 ing " as Murray. " A number of causes combined at this 
 moment to draw attention to Huntly." But, all counted, 
 the number is just two — one of them utterly frivolous, 
 and the other, " he had refused to give up the lands." 
 Mr. Froude is now candid, and tells us that Murray " re- 
 solved to anticipate attack (none was dreamed of), to 
 carry the Queen with him to visit the recusant lord in his 
 own stronghold, and either to drive him into a premature 
 rebellion or force him to submit to the existing govern- 
 ment." 
 
 " Murray's reasons for such a step," continues Mr. 
 Froude, "are intelligible." Perfectly. "It is less easy," 
 he continues, " to understand why Mary Stuart consented 
 to it." And then Mr. Froude proceeds to wonder over it 
 with John Knox's guesses, and his own " if," " perhaps," 
 and " may be." Less easy, indeed ! It is utterly impossi- 
 ble, unless one consents to look at Mary Stuart as she was 
 — a young woman easily influenced through her affections, 
 and with a sincere sisterly attachment for the man in 
 
 1 Mr. Froude, by " reactionary," means that he was not a disciple of 
 John Knox ; by " dangerous," that he was a man who would defend his 
 religion. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 whom she failed to recognize her worst enemy. Difficult 
 indeed to understand the suicidal measure of ruinins: the 
 most powerful Catholic nobleman in Scotland, and 
 strengthening the hands of the most powerful Protestant 
 leader. 
 
 Mr. Burton, too, tells us with a grave face, " that the 
 Queen should have dealt so hardly with Huntly has been 
 felt as one of the mysteries of history." Anything which, 
 properly explained, puts Mary Stuart in a true light, is to 
 Mr. Burton "mysterious," while everything stated to her 
 disadvantage is a matter so clear as to admit of no discus- 
 sion. 
 
 We leave these historians to speculate on the malicious 
 motive Mary Stuart must have had for thus lopping off her 
 right hand, a loyal subject, and true friend, whose services 
 would have been invaluable in the calamities soon to come 
 upon her. 
 
 " Huntly's family," says Mr. Froude, " affirmed that the 
 trouble which happened to the Gordons was for the sincere 
 and loyal affection which they had to the Queen's preserva- 
 tion." (vii. 456.) And they were right. 
 
 Murray now managed to draw the Queen and her attend- 
 ants over moor and mountain two hundred and fifty miles 
 to Tarnway, within the lands of the earldom of Murray. 
 She was entirely guided by him, and he used her authority 
 to compass his personal ends and weaken her throne. 
 
 Alexander Gordon at first refused to open the gates of 
 Inverness Castle to the Queen, but complied the next day, 
 on the order of Huntly. Murray had Gordon immediately 
 hung, and his head set on the castle wall. Mr. Froude 
 describes this brutal murder as " strangling a wolf-cub in 
 the heart of the den " (vii. 457), all that Murray does 
 being of course lovely. Mary was now surrounded by 
 Murray and his friends, who poisoned her mind against 
 the Huntlys with stories that the earl meant to force her 
 into a marriage with his son, and had other designs against 
 
THE EARL OF HUNTLY. 
 
 51 
 
 her person and royal authority ; and Mary believed them. 
 " WhereuiDon," writes Randolph to Cecil, — for Murray 
 had brought his English friend, Elizabeth's servant, along 
 with him, — " whereupon there was good pastime." 
 
 Truly most excellent pastime for Murray, at one stroke 
 to destroy his adversary, enrich himself, and .undermine 
 his sister's throne. The passage is highly characteristic 
 of Randolph, in the whole of whose correspondence there 
 is not a trait of manly straightforwardness or elevated 
 sentiment. 
 
 Huntly yielded all that was demanded 'of him. His 
 castles and houses were seized, plundered, stripped, and 
 he was a ruined man. Lady Huntly spoke sad truth when, 
 leading Murray's messenger into the ciiapel of the house, 
 she said to him before the altar, " Good friend, you see 
 here the envy tlrat is borne unto my husband ; would he 
 have forsaken God and his religion, as those that are now 
 about the Queen, my husband would never have been put 
 as he now is." (vii. 458.) Mr. Froude reports this inci- 
 dent, and very properly spoils its effect by the statement 
 that Lady Huntly was " reported by the Protestants to be 
 a witch." Huntly was driven to take up arms. 
 
 " Swift as lightning," says Mr. Froude, with yellow-cover 
 tinge of phrase, " Murray was on his track." And now 
 " swift as lightning " — sure sign of mischief meant — the 
 historian moves on with his narrative, omitting essential 
 facts, but not omitting a characteristic piece of handiwork. 
 News came from the south that Bothwell had escaped out 
 of Edinburgh Castle ; " not," glides in our philosophic his- 
 torian, — " not, it was supposed, without the Queen's knowl- 
 edge." (vii. 459.) After a wonderful victory of his two 
 thousand men over Huntly's five hundred, — a mere slaugh- 
 ter, — Murray brought the Queen certain letters of the Earl 
 of Sutherland, found, he said, in the pockets of the dead 
 Earl of Huntly, and showing treasonable correspondence. 
 They were forgeries; but they answered his purpose. 
 
52 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 " Lord John (Huntly's son), after a full confession, was 
 beheaded in the market-place at Aberdeen." (vii. 459.) 
 There was no confession but that which Murray told the 
 Queen he made, and Mr. Froude forgets to tell us that 
 Murray caused young Gordon's scaffold to be erected in 
 front of the Queen's lodging, and had her placed in a chair 
 of state at an open window, deluding her with some spe- 
 cious reason as to the necessity of her presence. 
 
 When the noble young man was brought out to die, Mary 
 burst into a flood of tears ; and when the headsman did 
 his work, she swooned and was borne off insensible. These 
 cruel scenes deeply shocked her gentle nature. All re- 
 marked her sadness ; and we learn from Knox : " For many 
 days she bare no better countenance, whereby it might have 
 been evidently espied that she rejoiced not greatly at the 
 success of the matter." Here is Mr. Froude's short ver- 
 sion of these facts: " Her brother .read her a cruel lesson 
 by compelling her to be present at the execution." Mr. 
 Froude also forgets to tell us that Murray had six gentle- 
 men of the house of Gordon hung at Aberdeen on the 
 same day. But a few pages further on, he has the incredi- 
 ble coolness to tell us of a prize that Mary " trusted to have 
 purchased with Huntly's blood ! " (vii. 463.) After all, you 
 thus perceive that it was not Murray, but Mary, who wrought 
 all this ruin ; and to show more clearly how deep must be 
 her guilt in thus allowing herself to be duped and injured, 
 Mr. Froude closes his chapter by quoting John Knox to 
 prove that " she (Mary) neither did or would have forever 
 one good thought of God or of his true religion." 
 
 Throughout all this portion of his history, Mr. Froude 
 labors to represent Elizabeth as the soul of honor and del- 
 icacy, and a much-injured woman, in treaty with the young 
 Scotch Queen, whose every word and movement is tor- 
 tuous and hypocritical. Meanwhile Elizabeth's constant 
 violation of the commonest honesty is treated euphuist- 
 ^cally. thus : " Truth and right in her mind were never 
 
MARY STUART'S POSITION. 
 
 53 
 
 wholly separated from advantage." " She seemed more 
 careful of her own interests than of the interests of relig- 
 ion." " She drove hard bargains, and occasionally over- 
 reached herself by excess of shrewdness." 
 
 During all this time, in all matters save her own personal 
 conduct and integrity, Mary Stuart, youthful and inex- 
 perienced, is a mere puppet in the hands of Murray, in 
 whom — for her great calamity — she confided with all the 
 depth of her noble nature and her sisterly affection. We 
 have seen that when in France she was influenced by the 
 Guises. This was so well understood in England, that as 
 late as June, 1562, Sir Nicholas Bacon, in the English Privy 
 Council, " assumed as certain that Mary Stuart was under 
 the direction of the House of Guise." So says Mr. Froude, 
 vii. 421. But our historian's devices are of no avail in so 
 plain a case as that of the Earl of Huntly, and the truth 
 comes out, when by deception and falsehood Murray pre- 
 vails upon his sister to commit an act which, at once a 
 stain upon her name as a sovereign and a woman, was also 
 a death wound to her power. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 " Mary Stuart was an admirable actress; rarely, perhaps, on the world's 
 stage has there been a more skilful player." — Froude's History of Eng- 
 land, viii. 367. 
 
 In all statements concerning Mary Stuart there is a 
 general absence of harmony between Mr. Froude's texts 
 and the authorities cited by him in their support. 
 
 Thus we read (vii. 542) : — 
 
 " Knox rose in the pulpit at St. Giles's and told them all that 
 whenever they, j)rofessing the Lord Jesus, consented that a Pa- 
 pist should be head of their sovereign, they did as far as in them 
 lay to banish Christ from the realm; they would bring God's 
 vengeance on their country, a plague on themselves, and per- 
 chance small comfort to their sovereign." 
 
 But Knox himself gives the passage thus : speaking 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 one infidel — and all Papists are 
 infidels — shall be head to your Sovereign, ye do so far in ye 
 lieth to banish Jesus Christ from this realm," etc. 
 
 Knox also records what the historian neglects to tell us, 
 that his language and manner were " deemed intolerable. 
 Papists and Protestants were both offended, yea, his most 
 familiars disclaimed him for that speaking." Suppressing 
 all this, and putting Mary forward as alone offended, it is 
 represented that " she gave her anger its course." ^ It is 
 
 1 Robertson thus speaks of Mary at this time: " Her gentle administra- 
 tion of two years had secured the hearts of her subjects." " She was the 
 most amiable woman of the age." 
 
MARY STUART AND JOHN KNOX. 
 
 55 
 
 not enough that IMary's enemy, Knox, has the relation of 
 all this matter to himself in his account of the interview, 
 written years afterward when she was a prisoner at Loch- 
 leven, Mr. Froude gives his own version thus : — 
 
 " In imagination Queen of Scotland, England, Ireland, Spain, 
 Flanders, Naples, and the Indies — in the full tide of hope, and 
 with the prize almost in her hands, she was in no humor to let a 
 heretic preacher step between her and the soaring flights of her 
 ambition. She sent for Knox, and, her voice shaking between 
 tears and passion, she said " — 
 
 Now Knox knew what the Queen said to him, but did 
 not know what was passing in her mind. The living actors 
 in the touching drama of Mary Stuart's life went groping 
 about in the comparative darkness of events that took 
 place before their very eyes. The power of reading her 
 thoujjhts was reserved for a later ao^e. 
 
 So far as Knox is concerned, we of course fully recognize 
 the fact that a Catholic sovereign could not possibly have 
 any rights which a Protestant subject was bound to re- 
 spect, and that when he insulted her in private and held 
 her up to scorn in public,^ it was merely what Mr. Froude 
 styles his " sound northern courtesy ! " 
 
 When Knox says Mary was " in a vehement fume," we 
 object to this rendition, — " her voice shaking between tears 
 and passion ; " and when we hear from that man of God 
 that the Queen sobbed so violently, that " scarcely could 
 her chalmer boy get napkins to hold her eyes dry for the 
 tears ; and the owling, besides womanly weeping, stayed her 
 speech," we pronounce the " admirable actress " a wretched 
 failure. 
 
 Is this the woman brought to Scotland prepared, " when 
 scarcely more than a girl," with consummate art and hy- 
 
 1 " Regardless of the distinctions of rank or character, he uttered his ad- 
 monitions with an acrimony and vehemence more apt to irritate than re- 
 claim. This often betrayed him into indecent and undutiful expressions 
 with respect to the Queen's person and conduct." — Robertson. 
 
56 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 pocrisy, " falsehood and deceit," " to weave the fibres of a 
 conspiracy," " prepared to wait, to control herself," " to hide 
 her purpose till the moment came/' " with a purpose fixed 
 as the stars." ? 
 
 Is this the finished pupil of Catherine de Medicis, the 
 inscrutable conspirator, the superior of Elizabeth in stony- 
 hearted indifference ? She blurts out to Knox that the 
 Church of Rome is the true Church of God, and when her 
 feelings are hurt she bursts into tears. Candor compels 
 us to decide that this leading actress is a decided ^asco. 
 
 One would think it no very difficult task for a man of 
 age and experience to see through an impulsive girl of 
 nineteen, whose face mirrored her soul. And yet we are 
 informed triumphantly, three several times, that " Knox 
 had looked Mary through and through." In this connec- 
 tion we have one of our historian's best efforts, to which 
 we ask special attention. 
 
 In introducing Knox's sermon just described, our his- 
 torian represents Knox as unsupported by the Scotch no- 
 bles, Murray in particular having been estranged from him 
 through Mary Stuart's cunning wiles. Mr. Fronde's ex- 
 planation of the cause of the coolness and estrangement 
 between Knox and Murray is commended to the reader's 
 serious attention. He thus states it : — 
 
 " Knox had labored to save Murray from the spell which his 
 sister had flung over him ; but Murray had only been angry at 
 his interference, and, ^ they spake not familiarly for more than a 
 year and a half.' " 1 (vii. 542.) 
 
 Pray notice the cause of this estrangement. It is very 
 explicitly stated. Look at it. This innocent Murray is 
 under a spell. All heart himself, he saw no guile in his 
 sister. But Knox warned him against the sorceress, Mur- 
 
 1 Mr. Froude's reference for this citation is Knox's History of the Reforma- 
 Hon, which is somewhat too general. The reader is advised to look for it in 
 vol. ii. p. 382. 
 
MURRAY AND KNOX. 67 
 
 ray resented his interference, and that was the cause of the 
 coolness between them. 
 
 The testimony of John Knox is invoked by our historian 
 to prove these statements. On tliis point there can be no 
 mistake, and we now pro^DOse to phice John Knox on the 
 stand and with his eyes to look Mr. Froude " through and 
 through." In the Parliament of 1563, Murray had the 
 " Act of Oblivion " passed, in which he managed to reserve 
 for himself and his friends the power to say who should or 
 should not profit by its provisions. With this Act he was 
 dangerous to all who opposed him, and consequently all- 
 powerful. Under these circumstances, John Knox pressed 
 Murray, now that he had the power, to establish the religion, 
 namely, pass in a constitutional manner the informal Act of 
 1560, and legalize the confession of faith as the doctrine 
 of the Church of Scotland. 
 
 Now call the witness, John Knox : — 
 
 " But the erledom of Murray needed confirmation, and many 
 things were to be ratified that concerned the help of friends and 
 servants — and the matter fell so hole hetwix the Erie of Murray 
 and John Knox, that familiarlie after that time they spack nott to- 
 gether more than a year and a half" l 
 
 Thus, if we may believe Knox himself, it was Murray's 
 preference for his own " singular commoditie " over the in- 
 terests of the kirk of God which caused that " they spake 
 not familiarly together for more than a year and a half." 
 Of " spell," " enchantress," or Mary Stuart, no word. 
 
 Mr. Burton's (" History of Scotland," iv. 224) version of 
 " the cause of the coolness " runs thus : — 
 
 " The proceedings of this Parliament filled up the cup of Knox's 
 gathering wrath against the Protestant lords, on their lukewarm- 
 ness in the great cause and over anxiety about their worldly 
 interests. He signified his displeasure on the occasion by solemnly 
 breaking loith Murray. 
 
 1 We regret that we have not room for the short discourse Knox made to 
 Murray on the occasion of their parting. 
 
58 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 " It is very significantly suggested in Knox's History that Mur- 
 ray wanted the estates and honors which he had obtained through 
 the ruin of the Gordons (HunthJ) effectually secured." 
 
 Mr. Burton then quotes : " The matter fell so hot," etc., 
 " that familiarly after that time they spake not together more 
 than a year and a half." 
 
 Even the French writer Mignet appears to understand 
 John Knox's English better than Mr. Froude, and says 
 Knox accused Murray of abandoning God for his worldly 
 advantage. Murray, wounded by his reproaches, broke with 
 him. Their former friendship ceased, and for eighteen 
 months they scarcely exchanged a word.^ 
 
 In looking at our English historian's portraiture of the 
 Scottish Queen, and in witnessing his efforts to paint her as 
 " sensual," the reader can well understand how desirable 
 must be for him some incident in her career which might 
 furnish him the material for a tableau in which she should 
 be made to figure as a Cleopatra. 
 
 As such an incident never had any existence in Mary's 
 life, our author is seriously embarrassed ; but emerges from 
 his trouble with a noteworthy effort. Referring to the in- 
 terview with Knox at which she wept so abundantly that a 
 page could hardly supply her with napkins to dry her tears; 
 Mr. Froude relates that, — 
 
 " Soon after this conversation Randolph brought Elizabeth's 
 message. In his account of the interview he gives a noticeable 
 sketch of Mary's personal habits. Active and energetic when oc- 
 casion required, this all-accomplished woman abandoned herself 
 to intervals of graceful self-indulgence. Without illness, or im- 
 agination of it, she would lounge for days in bed, rising only at 
 night for dancing or music ; and there she rechned with some 
 light delicate French robe carelessly draped about her, surrounded 
 by her ladies, her council, and her courtiers, receiving ambas- 
 sadors and transacting business of state. It was in this condition 
 that Randolph found her." (viii. 544.) 
 
 1 Mignet, vol. i. p. 142. 
 
MARY Stuart's occupations. 
 
 59 
 
 Randolph's dispatch giving this very " noticeable sketch '* 
 is cited thus : " Eandolph to Cecil, Sept. 4. Scotch MSS. 
 Rolls Housed 
 
 There is no such sketch or description in the dispatch. The 
 time assigned is "soon after this conversation " (with Knox), 
 which was in the spring of 15G3. September 4 is not " soon 
 after," " Randolph brought Elizabeth's message " signifies 
 that he came from London, and this could not have occurred 
 at any time between March and September. Early in June 
 the young Queen made her arrangements for a progress in 
 the Highlands, and Randolph then took his farewell audience, 
 having received two months' leave of absence. He might 
 have left on the loth, but he would not go until he saw 
 Lethington, and Lethington did not return until the 26th. 
 We know that he was in London August 20th, for on that 
 day he received from Elizabeth a memorial of certain mat- 
 ters " written in the first person as he would speak it to 
 the Queen of Scotland." 
 
 Returned to Edinburgh in the beginning of September, 
 Randolph " spoke his piece," and on the 4th September 
 reports to Cecil that he had a dinner with the nobles, an 
 honorable reception by the Queen, who frequently inter- 
 rupted his address, and that he thought the Queen " more 
 Spanish than Imperial ; " hut the Cleopatra sketch is absent. 
 
 Since attention has been drawn to this matter of Mary's 
 "graceful self-indulgence," we have thought it worth while 
 to ascertain from their own testimony what really were the 
 impressions of English ambassadors and others at the 
 court of Scotland, as to Mary's occupation of her time. 
 
 In April, 1562, Randolph writes to Cecil : " She readeth 
 daily after dinner, instructed by a learned man, Mr. Geo. 
 Buchanan, somewhat in Livy." 
 
 A few months earlier Throckmorton writes : " The next 
 day I was sent for into the council chamber, where she 
 herself ordinarily sitteth the most part of her time, sewing 
 some work or other." 
 
60 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 March 8, 15G4, Randolph writes Cecil : "For expedi- 
 cion of poor men's causes the Queen hath ordered three 
 dayes a week, augmenting the judged' stipends for their 
 attendance, and sitting herself for more equitie oftentimes.'' 
 
 Even John Knox says " she showed a becoming gravity 
 in council." 
 
 Sir James Melville says, — and he wrote this long after 
 Mary's dethronement, — " She behaved herself so princely, 
 so honorably, and so discreetly, that her reputation spread 
 in all countries, and (she) was determined and inclined so 
 to continue in that kind of comeliness unto the end of her 
 life, desiring to hold none in her company but such as 
 were of the best qualities and conversation, abhorring all 
 vices and vicious persons, whether they were men or 
 women." 
 
 Malcolm Laing, in insisting upon the credibility of the 
 depositions of Bothwell's servants, lays great stress on the 
 fact that the distinguished legalist and incorruptible judge, 
 Sir Thomas Craig, was one of the bench of judges when 
 they were tried and sentenced. With this indorsement 
 of Sir Thomas Craig by an enemy of Mary Stuart, his 
 testimony is important. He speaks from personal obser- 
 vation : "I have often heard the most serene Princess, 
 Mary Queen of Scotland, discourse so appositely and 
 rationally in all affairs which were brought before the 
 Privy Council, that she was admired by all ; and when 
 most of the councilors were silent, being astonished, or 
 straight declared themselves to be of her opinion, she 
 rebuked them sharply, and exhorted them to speak freely, 
 as became unprejudiced councilors, against her opinion, 
 that the best reasons might decide their determinations. 
 And truly her reasonings were so strong and clear that 
 she could turn their hearts to what side she pleased. She 
 had not studied law; yet by the natural light of her judg- 
 ment, when she reasoned of matters of equity and justice, 
 she ofttimes had the advantage of the ablest lawyers. Her 
 
HER GRACEFUL SELF-INDULGENCE. 
 
 61 
 
 Other discourses and actions were suitable to her great 
 judgment. As for her liberality and other virtues, they 
 were well known." 
 
 INIiss Strickland, in her thorough and admirable Life 
 of Mary," has traced her almost day by day from her cra- 
 dle to her grave, and in speaking of her life at the period 
 of Mr. Froude's Randolph dispatch, says that there is noth- 
 ing in the reports of any of the ambassadors resident at 
 the court of Scotland to justify the belief that Mary Stuart 
 could forget the dignity of a queen, or the decorum of a 
 gentlewoman. " As for oaths and profane or vulgar ex- 
 pletives, in mirth or in anger, such as were familiar as 
 household words with the miglity p]lizabeth, nothing of the 
 kind has ever been chronicled as defiling the lips of Mary 
 Stuart." 
 
 As Mr. Froude may have made a mistake in citing his 
 Cleopatra dispatch, we will give him the benefit of some 
 subsequent dispatches of Randolph, who made another 
 short absence from Edinburgh during the autumn of the 
 same year. 
 
 On his return, Randolph could not at first see the Queen, 
 who was ill. He so informs Cecil, December 13 : " For the 
 space of two months this Queen hath been divers times 
 in great melancholies. Her grief is marvelous secret. 
 Many times she weepeth when there is little appearance 
 of occasion." 
 
 This we presume to be the " graceful self-indulgence." 
 Again, Randolph to Cecil December 21 : " Her disease — 
 whereof it proceedeth I know not — daily increaseth. Her 
 pain is in her right side. Men judge it to proceed of 
 melancholy. She hath taken divers medicines of late, 
 but findeth herself little the better." And it is from such 
 reports as these that Mr. Froude finds that Mary was 
 " without illness, or imagination of it ! " 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 DAVID RICCIO. 
 
 " C'etait un homme adroit, d'un esprit plus cultivd qu'on ne I'avait 
 dans cette cour un peu sauvage." — Mignet. 
 
 The introduction of Riccio by Mr. Froude (viii. 120) is 
 a good specimen of his best art. There is an accusation 
 in every line, an insinuation in every word ; yet when he is 
 through, the reader is left in total ignorance of the Italian's 
 real position. Mr. Froude calls him Ritzio, which is not 
 purism but a piece of affectation. The name has hereto- 
 fore been written Rizzio and Riccio. Ritzio, to the English 
 eye, it is true, very nearly represents the Italian pronunci- 
 ation of Rizzio. The man's name was Riccio, as is well 
 determined by one letter of his, and two of his brother 
 Joseph, all still in existence and perfectly accessible.^ 
 
 His age, variously stated from thirty to forty, is never put 
 at less than thirty. Mr. Froude gives no figure, and calls 
 him " the youth ; " by which you may, if you choose, under- 
 stand eighteen or twenty. His real employment is con- 
 cealed, and (viii. 247) he is called " a wandering musician." 
 Riccio was a man of solid acquirements, able and accom- 
 
 Mr. Froude might have more successfully and usefully distinguished 
 himself as a purist by lending his aid to bring into use the name Moray, 
 instead of its vulgar substitute Murray, by which he designates James 
 Stewart, Earl of Moray. In order to avoid confusion, we follow him; and 
 write Murray for Moray. The question as to this name is thus clearly ex- 
 plained in Keith's Affairs of Church and Staie hi Scotland: " Murra}-- was 
 the patronymic or family name of four noble and of a number of ancient 
 and distinguished Scottish families. Moray was always the title of the 
 Earldom, as it has invariably been of the County of Mora}'- or Elgin; and 
 the Earls of Moray, the lineal descendants of the Kegent, never Avere ad- 
 dressed nor signed themselves Murray.^^ 
 
DAVID RICCIO. 
 
 63 
 
 plislied. He bad served several distinguished personages, 
 ambassadors and others, as secretary, and was intrusted 
 with the preparation of their most important dispatches 
 " in more elegant Tuscan than they could themselves com- 
 mand." INIignet may well credit him with " un esprit plus 
 cultive qu'on ne I'avait dans cette cour un peu sauvage." 
 He succeeded to the post formerly held by Raulet, — that 
 of secretary for the Queen's French correspondence, — 
 and was thoroughly versed in the languages as well as in 
 the troubled politics of the day. He was, moreover, de- 
 votedly loyal, and inspired Mary with entire confidence in 
 his integrity. 
 
 "With an admirable common sense, far in advance of her 
 period, she asks the nobles who sought his dimissal (Laba- 
 nofF, vol. vii. p. 297), " if they are to monopolize all the power 
 in the state, whether they inherit the virtues of their ances- 
 tors or not ? " and with a liberality far in advance of her 
 age, she adds : " If the sovereign finds a man in humble 
 condition and poor in worldly goods, but of a generous 
 spirit and faithful heart, and capable of serving the state, 
 must he be debarred from all advancement ? " Sir Walter 
 Scott (" History of Scotland ") says that a person like him, 
 " skilled in languages and in business," was essential to the 
 Queen, and adds, " No such agent was likely to be found in 
 Scotland, unless she had chosen a Catholic priest, which 
 would have given more offense to her Protestant subjects," 
 etc. 
 
 " The Queen," says Knox, " usit him for secretary in 
 things that appertainit to her secret affairs in France and 
 elsewhere." 
 
 "That he was old, deformed, and strikingly ugly, has 
 been generally accepted by historians," says Burton. 
 
 Having, it appears, no access to these three Scotch his- 
 torians, Mr. Froude is thrown on his own resources, and 
 evolves, " He became a favorite of Mary — he was an ac- 
 complished musician ; he soothed her hours of solitude 
 with love songs," etc. 
 
64 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 The truth is, that, as Mignet hints but fears to say 
 plainly, in all that makes the scholar, the cultivated gentle- 
 man, and the man of honor, the Scotch nobles about Mary 
 were far the inferiors of David Riccio. The modern sneer 
 is easy, but the fact remains that he was more than their 
 peer. The stories of his pride and arrogance rest solely on 
 the authority of his assassins and of the men who repeat 
 their stories. 
 
 From the beginning to the end of his " history," Mr. 
 Froude so accustoms his readers to accept testimony which, 
 on the plainest rules of evidence, would be thrust out of 
 the obscurest rural court, that they are never safe unless 
 they scrutinize all the proof he offers. As to Riccio's con- 
 duct, we have the testimony of an unbiased witness, — 
 Melville, a stanch Protestant nobleman, then resident at 
 court. In his " Memoirs " he makes no mention whatever 
 of the conduct imputed to Riccio, although aware of the 
 hatred borne him by the nobles, but he does speak in the 
 plainest terms of their insulting and brutal behavior to 
 him. " It is easy to say that it was indiscreet to repose 
 such confidence in this friendless foreigner : it is less easy 
 to point out among her turbulent and treacherous nobles a 
 single man whom she could trust." (Hosack, p. 122.) 
 
 At page 132, vol. viii., we have what young, lady novel- 
 readers would call " this splendid passage : " — 
 
 " Suddenly, unlocked for and uninvited, the evil spirit of the 
 storm, the Earl of Botliwell, reappeared at Mary's court. She 
 disclaimed all share in his return ; l he was^ still attainted ; yet 
 there he stood — none daring to lift a hand against him — proud, 
 insolent, and dangerous." 
 
 This is extremely fine writing, and the passage is really 
 dramatic, but without a word of truth except in the naked 
 fact that Bothwell returned " unlooked for and uninvited." 
 On the very same page with this glittering extract, Mr. 
 i This is a delicately artistic touch. 
 
THE EARL OF BOTH WELL. 65 
 
 » 
 
 Fronde quotes Randolph's letter to Cecil, March, 15, 15G5, 
 but totally fails to see in it these words : — 
 
 " The Queen misliketh Bothwcirs coming home, and has sum- 
 moned him to undergo the law or be proclaimed a rebel. He is 
 charged to have spoken dishonorably of the Queen." l 
 
 Bothwell was not at court, and his proud insolent atti- 
 tude consisted in seeking refuge among his vassals in 
 Liddesdale. 
 
 Leaving his " evil spirit of the storm " to fructify in the 
 mind of an imaginative reader, our historian abstains from 
 the subject for twenty pages, and, without hint of Ran- 
 dolph's information that the Queen had already summoned 
 Bothwell to undergo the law, states the matter thus : 
 " The Earl of Murray, at the expense of forfeiting the last 
 remains of his influence over his sister, had summoned 
 Bothwell to answer at Edinburgh a charge of high treason." 
 All this is ingenious, — the concealment as to who or- 
 dered the trial, — the pure disinterestedness of Murray, 
 and the ever present insinuation against Mary. Bothwell 
 came to Edinburgh, brought by the summons, to stand 
 his trial ; but on the approach of Murray with a train of 
 5,000 armed followers, he found, he said, the jury entirely 
 too numerous, and fled, sending a deputy to explain his 
 absence and " his willingness to meet the charge if pros- 
 ecuted according to the regular forms of justice without 
 such manifest danger to h,is life." 
 
 Rather lamely concludes Mr. Froude : " Bothwell 
 would have defied him had he dared ; but Murray ap- 
 peared accompanied by Argyll and 7,000 men on the day 
 fixed for the trial; and the Hepburn was once more 
 obliged to fly." " The Hepburn ! " 
 
 As usual, our historian has something to conceal. Mur- 
 ray's opposition to Mary's marriage with Darnley was . 
 
 1 Randolph (January 22, 1563), calls Bothwell " a blasphemous and ir- 
 reverent speaker, both of his own sovereign and the Queen my mistress." 
 5 
 
66 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 » 
 
 bitter. His ascendency in her councils had culminated in 
 his proposition to have himself legitimated, and that the 
 Queen should lease the crown to him and Argyll. Mary's 
 marriage to any one would end all such hopes, and Darn- 
 ley, moreover, was personally obnoxious to Murray because 
 he had been heard to say, looking at a map of Scotland, 
 that Murray had " too much for a subject." Elizabeth's 
 instructions precisely tallied with Murray's inclinations and 
 interest. 
 
 It was at this time that, with aid of Elizabeth and Cecil, 
 Murray was straining every nerve to prevent Mary's mar- 
 riage. He did his utmost to prevail upon her Protestant 
 subjects to revolt against her, had matured a plan to take 
 Lennox and Darnley prisoners ; and this show of armed 
 force was really not meant for Bothwell, but for the Queen. 
 Mr. Froude is correct when he says that Mary accused 
 him of seeking to set the crown on his own head. Even 
 Mignet can see that " Murray justifia en partie les defi- 
 ances de sa scEur par I'hostilite de ses demarches," which 
 were more than enough to justify her suspicions. The 
 interest of Murray and Argyll in pursuing Bothwell was 
 very clear. His condemnation procured, they were to 
 share his titles and estates. 
 
 We would, in a friendly manner, suggest to Mr. Froude 
 that the same page (viii. 132) which records the return 
 of Bothwell, " the evil spirit of the storm," needs radical 
 revision. On it appears this startling intelligence : " Len- 
 nox had gathered about him a knot of wild and desperate 
 youths — Cassilis, Eglinton, Montgomery, and Bothwell — 
 the worst and fiercest of all." 
 
 If our historian would but read the dispatches upon 
 which he professes to base his statements, he woiUd see 
 that Randolph speaks of all these men, not as the friends of 
 Lennox, but, on the contrary, as the strongest dependence 
 of Murray and Argyll against Lennox. He would further 
 see that Eglinton and Montgomery are one and the same 
 person, and that the real satellites of Lennox were Ruth- 
 
MARY'S MARRIAGE. 
 
 67 
 
 ven, Caithness, Athol, Hume, and Lord Robert Stuart, " a 
 man full of all evil." 
 
 Our English historian should really be more circum- 
 spect and not thus go carelessly about, trampling under 
 foot his own and the stainless Murray's best friends.^ 
 
 Meanwhile, Mary has been waiting Elizabeth's good 
 pleasure as to whom she shall marry. A succession of 
 royal offers had been declined by the widowed Queen. 
 The King of Denmark, several Italian princes, the Arch- 
 duke Charles of Austria, the Prince of Conde, Don Carlos 
 the Inflinta of Spain, and Eric King of Sweden, had all 
 sought her hand. 
 
 Elizabeth interfered at every step under pretext of sis- 
 terly affection or without pretext whatever. 
 
 The possibility of a match with the Archduke specially 
 affected her. Mr. Froude tells us (vii. 510), " She warned 
 her sister not to be abused by foolishness." " If she tried 
 that way she would come to no good," etc., etc., — the sum 
 of it all being that " she might take a husband where she 
 pleased," provided it was some one of Elizabeth's own 
 choice. The indecent insolence of the proceeding is ap- 
 parent even to Mr. Froude, who takes unphilosophic refuge 
 in " What right, it has been asked impatiently, had Eliz- 
 abeth to interfere with Mary Stuart's marriage ? As much 
 right, it may be answered, as Mary Stuart had to pretend to 
 the succession to the English crown." Pretend! Elizabeth 
 then suggested that an English nobleman would be the 
 proper person, and that " she would be content to give her 
 one whom perchance it could hardly be thought she could 
 agree unto," — meaning her own lover Leicester, a corrupt 
 villain and the murderer of his wife. Mr. Froude thus 
 states Elizabeth's touchingly generous offer : — 
 
 " Lord Robert Dudley was, perhaps, the most worthless of her 
 subjects ; but in the loving eyes of his mistress he was the knight 
 sans peur et sans reproche ; and she took a melancholy pride in 
 offering her sister her choicest jewel." (viii. 74.) 
 
 1 M. Wiesener. 
 
68 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 But he spoils the " melancholy pride " at the next page by 
 telling us that Elizabeth " was so capable of falsehood that 
 her own expressions would have been an insufficient guar- 
 antee for her sincerity," — and that " Cecil approved the 
 choice to rid his mistress of a companion whose presence 
 about her person ivas a disgrace to herT 
 
 And now comes the plot of Murray and his friends to 
 seize Darnley and his father (Lennox), deliver them to 
 Elizabeth's agents, or slay them if they made resistance, 
 and imprison the Queen at Lochleven. In a note (viii. 
 278), Mr. Froude, with a touching melancholy, says, " A 
 sad and singular horoscope had already been cast for Darn- 
 ley." The magician of this horoscope was Randolph, who 
 fears that " Darnley can have no long life amongst this peo- 
 ple." Certainly not, if Mr. Randolph understands himself; ^ 
 for his letters of that period are full of the details of a plot 
 to stir up an insurrection in Scotland, place Murray at the 
 head of it, kill Darnley and his father, and imprison the 
 Queen at Lochleven.- Elizabeth sent Murray £7,000 for 
 the nerve of the insurrection, and her letters to Bedford 
 instructing him to furnish Murray with money and soldiers 
 are in existence. The programme was at last carried out 
 eighteen months later, when Darnley was killed and Mary 
 a prisoner. 
 
 In February, 1565, the young and handsome Henry 
 Darnley, son of the Earl of Lennox, came to Edinburgh. 
 It was soon rumored that he too was a suitor for Mary's 
 hand, and, it soon became evident, a successful one. Eliza- 
 beth stormed and raged, arrested Darnley 's mother. Lady 
 Margaret Lennox, and threw her into the Tower. Murray 
 broke out in open rebellion with Elizabeth's aid, as we shall 
 see. Randolph behaved with his usual impertinence, and 
 
 1 Mary was fully advised that Randolph, Elizabeth's ambassador, was an 
 ill-natured, sarcastic spy upon all her actions, and active in alienating the 
 loyalty of her nobles. She desired to be rid of his presence, but was dis- 
 suaded from it by Murray's wily counsel. Murray knew his friends. 
 
THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE. 
 
 69 
 
 to aid him in remonstrance against the marriage, Elizabeth 
 sent one Tamvvorth, an insolent puppy, who was ordered 
 back to the Border. 
 
 On the 20th July, 1565, the Queen was publicly married 
 to Lord Darnley at Holyrood. 
 
 A letter from Randolph is misquoted (viii. 161), and 
 made to say concerning Mary Stuart what cannot be found 
 in the original. Twenty pages further on, Randolph's 
 ♦ statement in this letter is referred to as warranting this in- 
 vention, — " in mind and body she was said to be swollen 
 and disfigured by the tumultuous workings of her pas- 
 sions." The passage is merely the result of the tumultu- 
 ous workings of Mr. Fronde's imagination. 
 
 The alleged participation of Mary in the so-called Cath- 
 olic League has always been one of the most serious accu- 
 sations against her. Tytler regards it " as one of the most 
 fatal errors of her life," and " to it," says Robertson, " may 
 be imputed all her subsequent calamities." Mr. Froude 
 has means of information which were not accessible when 
 these historians wrote, and yet states the matter thus : " A 
 copy of the bond had been sent across to Scotland, which 
 Randolph ascertained that Mary Stuart had signed." And 
 on this positive assertion he perseveres to the end. We 
 have already had occasion to see that in any'question touch- 
 ing Mary Stuart, there is unrelenting war between Mr. 
 Froude and respectable historical authority. In this case 
 the result obtained from examination of the authorities is 
 that : First, Mary Stuart never signed the League. Second, 
 She distinctly refused to sign it. 
 
 Our English historian's sole authority is Randolph. It 
 would, doubtless, have been gratifying to him to have been 
 able to cite Camden, De Thou, or Holinshed, or even Knox 
 or Buchanan, but they are all silent on this point. Failing 
 these, he says that he quotes Randolph. But he misquotes 
 him. Randolph did not say that he had ascertained that 
 Mary had signed. He said, she has signed, " as /y^ear." 
 
70 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 His dispatch is dated February 7, 15GG, and it is contra- 
 dicted by a later one from Bedford, of the lith. It was 
 not then signed, and there is no pretense that she signed it 
 afterwards. 
 
 The historians of the period state distinctly what sover- 
 eigns signed the League, and the name of the Queen of 
 Scots is not mentioned. Moreover, on the IGth March, 
 15G7, after Durnley's death, the Bishop of Mondovi, the pa- 
 pal legate to Scotland, wrote (original in the Medici Ar- 
 chives) : " If the Queen had done as was proposed and 
 urged on her (in regard to the League), with the promise 
 of all succor necessary for her objects, she would at this 
 time have found herself wholly mistress of her kingdom, in 
 a position to establish fully the Holy Catholic faith. But 
 she ivould never listen to it, though the Bishop of Dunblane 
 and Father Edmond (Jesuit) were sent to determine her 
 to embrace this most wise enterprise." 
 
 " By refusing to joiu the CathoUc League, she maintained her 
 solemn promises to her Protestant subjects — the chief of whom, 
 we shall find hereafter, remained her stanchest friends in the 
 days of her misfortune — she averted the demon of religious dis- 
 cord from her dominions, and posterity will applaud the wisdom 
 as well as the magnitude of the sacrifice which she made at this 
 momentous crisis." (Hosack, p. 129.) 
 
 Randolph, strangely enough, finds fault with Mary for 
 her toleration in religious matters. " Her will to continue 
 papistry, and her desire to have all men live as they list, so 
 ofiendeth the godly men's consciences, that it is continually 
 feared that these matters will break out to some great mis- 
 chief." And lo ! the mischief did break out. The Assem- 
 bly of the Kirk presented, under the singular garb of a 
 "supplication," a remonstrance to the Queen. in which they 
 declare that " the practice of idolatry " could not be toler- 
 ated in the sovereign any more than in the subject, and 
 that the "papistical and blasphemous mass" should be 
 wholly abolished. To whom the Queen : — 
 
MARY AND THE KIRK. 
 
 71 
 
 " Wlierc it Avas desired that the mass should be suppressed and 
 abolished, as well in her majesty's own person and flimily as 
 amongst her subjects, her highness did answer for herself, that 
 she was noways persuaded that there was any impiety in the mass, 
 and trusted her subjects would not press her to act against her 
 conscience ; for not to dissemble, but to deal plainly with them, 
 she neither might nor would forsake the religion wherein she had 
 been educated and brought up, believing the same to be the true 
 religion, and grounded on the word of God. Her loving subjects 
 should know that she, neither in times past, nor yet in time com- 
 ing, did intend to force the conscience of any person, but to per- 
 mit every one to serve God in^such manner as they are persuaded 
 to be the best, that they likewise would not urge her to anything 
 that stood not with the quietness of her mind." 
 
 " Nothing," remarks Mr. Hosack, " could exceed the 
 savage rudeness of the language of the Assembly ; nothing 
 could exceed the dignity and moderation of the Queen's 
 reply." Of all this, in Mr. Fronde's pages, not one word ! 
 Indeed, he at all times religiously keeps out of sight all Mary 
 says or writes, admitting rarely a few words under prudent 
 censorship and liberal expurgation. Sweetly comparing 
 the Assembly to " the children of Israel on their entrance 
 into Canaan," he dissimulates their savage rudeness, and 
 adds, that Murray, though he was present, " no longer 
 raised his voice in opposition." Randolph fully confirms 
 what Throckmorton reported four years before, — that she 
 neither desired to change her own religion nor to interfere 
 with that of her subjects. Mary told Knox the same thing 
 when she routed him, by his own admission, in profane his- 
 tory, and his own citations from the Old Testament. Where 
 she obtained her familiarity with the Scriptures we cannot 
 imagine, if Mr. Froude tells the truth about her " French 
 education." " A Catholic sovereign sincerely pleading to 
 a Protestant assembly for liberty of conscience, might have 
 been a lesson to the bigotry of mankind " (viii. 182) ; 
 " but," adds Mr. Froude, " Mary Stuart was not sincere." 
 When this gentleman says Mary Stuart is intolerant, we 
 
72 
 
 MAEY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 show him, by a standard universally recognized, her words 
 and actions, all always consistent with each other and with 
 themselves, that she was eminently tolerant and liberal. 
 But when he gives us his personal and unsupported opin- 
 ion that " she was not sincere," he passes beyond the bounds 
 of historical argument into a realm where we cannot follow 
 him. 
 
 Still greater than Mr. Fronde's difficulty of quoting 
 Mary at all, is his difficulty of quoting her correctly when 
 he pretends to. Randolph comes to Mary with a dictatorial 
 message from Elizabeth, that she shall not take up arms 
 against the lords in insurrection. Our historian calls it a 
 •request that she would do no injury to the Protestant lords, 
 who were her good subjects. Mary replied, according to 
 Proude (viii. 188), "that Elizabeth might call them 'good 
 subjects ; ' she had found them bad subjects, and as such 
 she meant to treat them." Mary really said : — 
 
 " For those whom your mistress calls ' my best subjects,' I can- 
 not esteem them so, nor so do they deserve to be accounted of 
 that that they will not obey my commands ; and therefore my 
 good sister ought not to be offended if I do that against them as 
 they deserve." 
 
 The truth is, Mary's unvarying queenly dignity and 
 womanly gentleness in all she speaks and writes is a source 
 of profound unhappiness to her English historian, refuting 
 as it does his theory of her character. Consequently it is"* 
 his aim to vulgarize it down to a standard in vogue else- 
 where. 
 
 Mr. Froude is most felicitous when he disguises Mary, 
 as he frequently does, with Elizabeth's tortuous drapery. 
 Thus : — 
 
 " Open and straightforward conduct did not suit the complexion 
 of Mary Stuart's genius | she breathed more freely, and she used 
 her abilities with better effect, in the uncertain twilight of con- 
 spiracy." 
 
 " Uncertain twilight " is pretty. But where were Mary's 
 
THE PISTOL STORY. 
 
 73 
 
 conspiracies ? Had she Randolphs at Elizabeth's court, 
 and Driirys on the Border, plotting, intriguing, and bribing 
 English noblemen? Had she two thirds of Elizabeth's 
 council of state pensioned as paid spies ? Had she salaried 
 officials to pick up or invent English court scandal for her 
 anuisenient? Truly it is refreshing to turn from Mary's 
 . twilight conspiracies to the open and honest transactions 
 of Elizabeth, Cecil, and Randolph. 
 
 But of the malicious gossip of Elizabeth's spies one might 
 not so much complain, if the historian had the fairness to 
 give their reports without embroidery of rhetoric and 
 imagination. Thus, when Randolph writes, " There is a 
 silly story afloat that the Queen sometimes carries a pistol," 
 Mr. Froude considers himself authorized to say, " She 
 carried pistols in hand and pistols at her saddle-bow ; " and, 
 as usual, reading her thoughts, goes on to tell us that " her 
 one peculiar hope was to destroy her brother, against whom 
 she bore an especial and unexplained animosity." The 
 personal intimacy between Randolph and Murray more than 
 sufficiently explains the source of the information given in 
 Randolph's letter of October 13th. (viii. 196.) Mr. Froude 
 in a moment of weakness says that the intimacy between 
 the Queen and Riccio was so confidential as to provoke cal- 
 umny. That anything said of Mary Stuart could possibly 
 be calumny is an admission only less amazing than his other 
 statement that " she was warm and true in her friendships." 
 The Queen's indignation against Murray is sufficiently ac- 
 counted for by the existence of the calumnies, and the fact 
 that Murray's treasons sent him at this time a fugitive to 
 his mistress Elizabeth. A few pages further on, we have 
 Mary riding " in steel bonnet and corselet, with a dagg at 
 her saddle-bow " (viii. 213), for which Randolph is quoted as 
 authority. But Randolph wrote, " If what I have heard 
 be true^ she rode," etc., — questionable hearsay where Mary 
 Stuart is concerned answering somewhat better than fact. 
 
 After the armed rebellion of Murray and his friends, 
 
74 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 popularly known in Scotland as " The Runabout Raid," we 
 have Mary " breathing nothing but anger and defiance. 
 The affection of a sister for a brother was curdled into a 
 hatred the more malignant because it was more unnatural. 
 Her whole passion was concentrated on Murray." (viii. 
 198.) 
 
 It must be clear to every one how reprehensible Mary . 
 was for showing any feeling at all in defense of her crown, 
 her liberty, and her life ; and with Mr. Froude's premises 
 and logic, Murray gave a signal proof of affection for his 
 sister in arraying himself against her legitimate authority 
 as the head of an insurrection. Mr. Froude can see, in the 
 just indignation of the Queen against domestic traitors in 
 league with a foreign power, nothing but the violence of 
 a vengeful fury. His anxiety to possess his readers of the 
 same view has brought him into a serious difficulty, which 
 has been exposed by M. Wiesener in his articles on " Marie 
 Stuart."^ Mr. Froude quotes a letter (viii. 211) of Ran- 
 dolph to Cecil of October 5th, " in Rolls House," by which 
 he means Record Office, to show that Mary " was deaf to 
 advice as she had been to menace," and " she said she would 
 have no peace till she had Murray's or ChatelherauW s head.''* 
 This letter appears to be visible to nobody but Mr. 
 Froude ; and we have the authority of Mr. Joseph Steven- 
 son, who is more at home among the MSS. of the Record 
 Office than Mr. Froude, and who, when he uses them, has 
 the merit of citing them in their integrity, for stating that 
 this letter of the 5th October, referred to by Mr. Froude, 
 is not in the Record Office.^ But there is a letter .there 
 
 1 These articles appeared in the Revue des Questions Ilistoriques in 1868. 
 They are exceedingly able, and we take great pleasure in recording our 
 obligations to Professor Wiesener for the aid afforded by them in the prep- 
 aration of this work. 
 
 2 See Calendar of the State Papers relating to Scotland^ preserved in the 
 State Paper Department of her Majest'ifs Public Record Office. 2 vols, 
 quarto. London, 1858. Copy in Astor Library. This calendar gives the 
 date and abstract of the contents of each document. There is no record of 
 any letter of Randolph to Cecil of October 5th, 1565, but there is one of 
 October -Ith. 
 
TREASON OR PATRIOTISM? 
 
 75 
 
 from Randolph to Cecil of the 4th October, in which Ran- 
 dol[)h represents Mary " not only uncertain as to what she 
 should do, but inclined to clement measures, and so unde- 
 cided as to hope that matters could be arranged ! " 
 
 This does not sound like " deaf to advice," and Mr. 
 Froude can arrange this little difficulty with the dates and 
 Mr. Stevenson at his leisure. Meantime, we anxiously 
 wait to hear from Mr. Froude where he found his author- 
 ity for stating that Mary said she would have no peace till 
 she had Murray's or Chatelherault's head. 
 
 Referring to this insurrection of Murray, it is curious 
 and to some extent amusing to see with what ingenuity 
 Mr. Froude contrives to throw a halo of virtue and patriot- 
 ism around his repeated attempts to dethrone his sister by 
 plots, treachery, armed rebellion, and the aid of a foreign 
 power. As already remarked, our historian is the personal 
 friend or open enemy of all his historical characters. For 
 him, the same act is criminal in the one but virtuous in the 
 other. In Reginald Pole it is damnable ; in Murray it is 
 virtue and patriotism combined. At an early stage of his 
 history he is decidedly of the opinion that " for a subject 
 to invite a foreign power to invade his country is the dark- 
 est form of treason " (iii. 40), and by a piece of syllogistic 
 play he finds Reginald Pole clearly guilty of such treason 
 for merely writing to a friend a letter susceptible of two or 
 three constructions not necessarily involving any such in- 
 tention. 
 
 But at the same time he can perceive nothing that is not 
 lovely in Murray's infamy — for which this provident pro- 
 vision is made : " A distinct r.eligious obligation might con- 
 vert the traitor into a patriot," — the religious obligation of 
 course requiring Mr. Froude's approval by his own stand- 
 ard, and not that of the individual acting under the obli- 
 gation. 
 
 Mary marched against the rebels with eighteen thousand 
 men. As she approached, they fled into England, and the 
 rebellion was over. 
 
76 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 "The Queen of Scots, following in hot pursuit, glared 
 across the frontier at her escaping prey." (viii. 214.) 
 Our author's precise information as to the expression of 
 Mary Stuart's eyes is really remarkable. Here her eyes 
 " glare ; " elsewhere (viii. 365 ), there is an " odd glitter in 
 her eyes while at page 161, they are " flashing pride and 
 defiance." 
 
 It is this imaginative power and talent for pictorial em- 
 bellishment which lend to Mr. Fronde's work such peculiar 
 attraction for the general reader. And to give expression 
 to this natural appreciation, such testimonials as the follow- 
 ing are seriously produced as evidences of its merit. 
 
 " What a wonderful history it is ! " says Mrs. Mulock 
 Craik ; " and wonderful indeed is it, with its vivid pictures 
 of scenes and persons long passed away ; its broad charity, 
 its tender human sympathy, its ever present dignity, its 
 outbursts of truest pathos." 
 
 All this is in keeping with the eternal fitness of things. 
 This excellent lady, a somewhat successful writer of novels, 
 expresses herself in all sincerity. Her admiration is genu- 
 ine. It is that of a pupil for her master, and she ingen- 
 uously admires one who has attained excellence in his art. 
 Doubtless many will repeat after her, " What a wonderful 
 history it is ! " 
 
CHAPTER VIIL 
 
 AN EXPLANATION FROM MR. FROUDE. 
 
 " Mr. Froude does not seem to have fully grasped the nature of inverted 
 commas." — London Saturday Review. 
 
 In the New York " Tribune" of October 15, 1870, the 
 following article appeared editorially : — 
 
 "In the eighth volume of Mr. Froude's * History,' he quotes 
 an important letter which he states was written by Randolph to 
 Sir W. Cecil. A writer in a recent number of ' The Catholic 
 World ' asserts that he has been informed by Mr. Stevenson of 
 the Record Office (where Mr. Froude says he found it) that 
 there is no such letter in that office at all. The impression con- 
 veyed by the very positive statement in ' The Catholic World,' 
 on the authority of Mr. Stevenson (who is a Catholic), is that 
 Froude forged the letter. On reading the article in the Amer- 
 ican periodical Mr. Froude wrote to the Foreign Office, and dis- 
 covered that there has been, either by himself or a compositor, a 
 clerical error in giving the name of the writer of the letter. It 
 was the Earl of Bedford, instead of Randolph, who wrote the let- 
 ter, though, owing to the fact that Randolph was at that time 
 about the court, and in connection with Bedford, the latter could 
 only have written on the authority of Randolph. However that 
 may be, the impression produced by the statement of the critic 
 in ' The Catholic World ' is erroneous. In the letter he is right, 
 in the spirit false. He says there is no such letter in the Public 
 Record Office. We copy below the reply that Froude has re- 
 ceived from that office. The date, letter, etc.,* are given in this 
 reply verbatim, as they are contained in the ' History,' the only 
 difference absolutely being that, by the clerical error mentioned, 
 Randolph is given as the writer instead of Bedford, an error that 
 does not in the slightest degree affect the moral or historical 
 weight of the extract : * The letter referred to in Mr. Froude's 
 
78 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 note to Sir Thomas Hardy is from the Earl of Bedford to Sir "W. 
 Cecil, dated Ahiwick, 5 Oct., 15G5 (Scotland, Elix. vol. xi. No. 
 60 A). The words are as follows : " Ther is no talke of peace 
 with that Q. but that she will first have a heade of the Duke or 
 of the Erie of Murrey." The volume of " Foreign State Papers, 
 1564-1565, p. 480, No. 1558," about to be published, also con- 
 tains this letter. 
 
 " ' W. Noel Sainsbury. 
 " ' Public Record Office, 12 Aug., 1870.' " 
 
 To this the following reply was published in the " Tri- 
 bune " of October 24 : — 
 
 " THE FROUDE CONTROVERSY. 
 
 " To the Editor of the ' Tribune ' ; — 
 
 " Sir, — A paragraph in your issue of the 15th inst., under the 
 heading ' Literary Notes,' endeavors to explain away one of the 
 many serious errors committed by Mr. Froude in his ' History of 
 England.' At page 211, vol. viii., he makes a grievous accusa- 
 tion against Mary Stuart, based on a letter from Randolph (Queen 
 Elizabeth's ambassador in Scotland) to Cecil (the English Prime 
 Minister), which letter is thus cited : ' Randolph to Cecil, Octo- 
 ber 5, Scotch MSS. Rolls House.' In an article reviewing, Mr. 
 Froude's work, published in the August number of ' The Catho- 
 lic World,' this accusation was commented upon, and the asser- 
 tion was made, on indisputable authority, that ' this letter of 5th 
 October, referred to by Mr. Froude, is not in the Record Office ; * 
 and it now appears from Mr. Froude's attempted defense that 
 the assertion is correct, and that there is no such letter there. 
 But the benefit of a mistake, ' either by himself or a compositor,' 
 is claimed for Mr. Froude, and it is said that there is a letter in 
 the Record Office from the Duke of Bedford to Cecil, 'the only 
 difference absolutely being that by the clerical error mentioned 
 Randolph is given as the writer instead of Bedford — an error 
 that does not in the slightest degree affect the moral or historical 
 weight of the extract.' Upon this assertion the writer of the 
 Froude review in ' The Catholic World' takes direct issue with 
 the author of the ' Tribune ' paragraph, whether he be ]\lr. 
 Froude himself, or some one speaking for him, and in the proper 
 place, namely, the closing article of his series on Mr. Froude's 
 
MR. FROUDE'S explanation. 
 
 79 
 
 ■work he pledges himself to show that in this matter he is right, 
 not only ' in the letter,' but also ' in the spirit,' and that the 
 Bedford letter falls deplorably short of what is claimed for it. 
 
 "M. 
 
 " New York, Oct 19, 1870." 
 
 Not stopping to comment upon some objectionable 
 points in the " Tribune " paragraph, one of which is the 
 singular appeal to Protestant prejudice in pointing out Mr. 
 Stevenson as a Catholic,^ we pass to the discussion of the 
 strictly historical question involved. 
 
 And, at the outset, we decline to be at all accountable 
 for the proposition that " the impression conveyed by the 
 very positive statement in * The Catholic World ' is that 
 Froude forged the letter." Forged is a gross and serious 
 term. We neither used the word nor any expression 
 equivalent to it. Mr. Froude could not be charged with 
 forging a letter he did not produce. He cited, with the 
 usual quotation marks which convey the assurance to 
 the reader that the words are original, a short passage 
 which he said was in a certain designated letter. At page 
 211, vol. viii., he makes Mary Stuart say she could have 
 no peace till she had Murray's or ChatelheraulC s head" and 
 gave as his authority a letter of " Randolph to Cecil, Oct. 
 5, Scotch MSS. Rolls House." We asserted (August No. 
 " Catholic World," p. 587) " this letter of 5th October re- 
 ferred to by Mr. Froude is not in the Record Office.'' But 
 our " statement was very positive," says the " Tribune " par- 
 agraph. It was. And we now repeat it yet more posi- 
 tively, since Mr. Froude admits that the Randolph letter 
 cited by him has no existence. On that point, the contro- 
 versy may be considered as closed. 
 
 1 It appears that Mr. Stevenson was written to in his official capacity, 
 and the question asked him, Is there in tlie Record Office such a document 
 as a letter from Randolph to Cecil, dated October 5, 15G5? — to which Mr. 
 Stevenson replied that there was not. Now, neither the propriety of his 
 replying nor the truth of his answer is at all questioned, but — " Mr. Ste- 
 venson is a Catholic " — ah ! 
 
80 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 We freely accept the explanation given, according to 
 which Mr. Froude meant to cite a letter from the Duke 
 of Bedford to Cecil, " the only difference absolutely being 
 that, by the clerical error mentioned, Randolph is given as 
 the writer instead of Bedford." 
 
 Then, according to this explanation, it was Bedford who 
 wrote, " She said she could have no peace till she had 
 Murray's or Chatelherault's head ? " But it appears that, 
 "in the letter referred to in Mr. Froude's note to Sir 
 Thomas Hardy," the Earl of Bedford wrote no such thing, 
 and we still wait to hear from Mr. Froude where he found 
 his authority for stating that Mary Stuart used the words 
 he has put in her mouth. 
 
 We do not want amiable supposition and inference and 
 a general good-natured wish to help a worthy gentleman 
 out of a serious difficulty of his own making. We desire, 
 and have the clearest right to demand, proper documentary 
 evidence that Mary Stuart used the precise language attrib- 
 uted to her by Mr. Froude. The explanation offered by 
 the " Tribune " paragraph does not supply such evidence, 
 and we have good reasons for doubting Mr. Froude's ability 
 to produce it. 
 
 If Mr. Froude meant to cite the words " there is no talk 
 of peace," etc., as proving the malignant hatred of Mary 
 Stuart for her bastard half-brother Murray, why did he not 
 quote the express language of the letter ? By what right 
 does he substitute other words, conveying a very different 
 meaning ? We know of no school of history or morality 
 whose teachings warrant a historian in giving as an orig- 
 inal authority his own interpretation, in his own words, of 
 the meaning of that authority. The writing of history, 
 with aid of such processes, would soon become what to too 
 great extent it unfortunately is — the composition of ro- 
 mance. 
 
 The singular explanation is given that, "owing to the 
 fact that Randolph was at that time about the court and in 
 
MR. froude's explanation.' 81 
 
 connection with Bedford, the latter could only have written 
 on the authority of Randolph." The natural inference from 
 this statement is that Randolph, " who was about the 
 court," must have authorized Bedford to write the letter, 
 thus leading us to suppose that Bedford was his subordi- 
 nate, and also " about the court." 
 
 Very far from it. Randolph was not then, and never 
 was in a position to be the personal equal or the official 
 superior of Bedford. An English earl writing under the 
 authority of Mr. Randall ? ^ 
 
 Truly, the man who in the year of grace 1565 should 
 have intimated to Francis, the second Earl of Bedford, 
 that he was Randolph's subordinate, would have passed 
 what our French friends call a mauvais quart dlieure. 
 Independently of other all-sufficient considerations, such as 
 rank and title, their relative positions toward their sov- 
 ereign should settle this question. Randolph's written 
 communications were, as a general rule, strictly official and 
 addressed to Cecil, Elizabeth's minister.^ 
 
 But Bedford, whenever he thought it necessary, ad- 
 dressed Elizabeth directly and in person, and she answered 
 him with her own hand.^ And this could not well be 
 otherwise, considering the delicate nature of the subjects 
 treated between them. Of one letter of Bedford to Eliza- 
 
 1 This was his real name, although he was usually called Randolph. 
 
 2 Speaking of a certain negotiation, Mr. Froude says (xi. 71), "Ran- 
 dolph, who was not admitted to his mistress's secrets, could not under- 
 stand what she was about." 
 
 3 In the short space of five weeks, the following correspondence took 
 place: September 12,1505, Elizabeth to Bedford. (This is the letter ifi 
 which she instructs him secretl}' to furnish Murray with money and sol- 
 diers, taking care not to let her be detected.) September 19, 1565, Bed- 
 ford to Elizabeth. September 28, Bedford to Elizabeth. October 13, 
 Bedford to Elizabeth. October 20, Elizabeth to Bedford. October 20, 
 receipt by the Earl of Murray to Bedford (for the Queen of England) of 
 £7,000, " to be eniploit in the common cause and action now in hands 
 within this realm of Scotland, enterprisit by the nobilitie thereof for main- 
 teynance of the true religion." Dumfries, 1st October, 1565 (signed) 
 James Stewart. 
 
 6 
 
82 TiIARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 beth, Mr. Fronde says (viii. 214), "Bedford wrote in plain, 
 stern terms to the Queen herself." 
 
 " About the court ? " Are we to understand that Ran- 
 dolph was a guest, a spy, or a hanger-on at the Scottish 
 court ? " In connection with Bedford ! " What is meant 
 by this strange ambiguity ! There is no occasion for any 
 mystery. Randolph was the diplomatic representative of 
 Elizabeth at the court of Scotland, and having, by virtue 
 of his position, frequent opportunities of seeing and hear- 
 ing Mary Stuart, his testimony as to her sayings and do- 
 ings is valuable in so far as it is that of a person who 
 might "possibly have heard her say "she could have no 
 peace," etc. — provided she ever said so. On this account, 
 the citation, "Randolph to Cecil," was important to Mr. 
 Froude. But Randolph did not so report her, and we are 
 asked to suppose that Bedford did, on the authority of 
 Randolph. But here a serious difficulty arises. Although 
 Randolph was at the time " about, the court," the Earl of 
 Bedford was not. He was not "about the court." He 
 was not at Holyrood. He was not in Edinburgh. In 
 short, he was not even in Scotland. As marshal or gov- 
 ernor of Berwick, in command of the Border, Bedford was 
 then in England, where Mr. Froude represents him a 
 few days later as " confined by his orders at Carlisle." 
 (viii. 214.) 
 
 Although, as Mr. Froude says (viii. 113), "Bedford was 
 a determined man, with the prejudices of a Protestant and 
 the resolution of an English statesman ; " although he was 
 Elizabeth's ready tool in an infamous piece of treachery 
 with the Scotch rebels in the insurrection against the Scot- 
 tish Queen, which Mr. Froude expressly admits (viii. 214) 
 as " undertaken at Elizabeth's instigation and mainly in 
 Elizabeth's interests," and although he offered to reenact 
 the villainy of Admiral Winter, proposing to Elizabeth that 
 she should " play over again the part which she had played 
 with Winter ; he would himself enter Scotland with the 
 
MR. FROUDE'S explanation. 
 
 83 
 
 Berwick garrison, and her majesty could afterward seem to 
 blame him for attempting such things as with the help of 
 others he could bring about," he may, nevertheless, have 
 written in good faith to Cecil, " There is no talk of peace 
 with that Queen," etc. Talk with signifies the discourse of 
 at least two persons. 
 
 Talk by whom ? When ? Where ? We take his com- 
 munication to Cecil to mean that people thought it useless 
 to talk or think of peace — that is to say, the end of the 
 rebellion, until Murray and Chatelherault, its leaders, were 
 punished ; and this was the most natural view in the world 
 for an Englishman or a Scotchman of that day to take. 
 Under Henry and under Elizabeth, no man who arrayed 
 himself against regal authority ever escaped confiscation, 
 the block, and the axe, except by exile, and even then 
 was not always safe from treacherous English vengeance. 
 Mary Stuart was then at the beginning of her career, and 
 was not yet known for that kindness of heart and horror 
 of bloodshed which made her reign one of " plots and par- 
 dons," and sacrificed her crown and her life. 
 
 The punishment of Murray and Chatelherault for their 
 crime was at that day looked upon as a matter of course. 
 
 The Bedford letter is dated Alnwick (England). Whence 
 came Bedford's information, " There is no talk of peace ? " 
 Is Mr. Froude in possession of a letter of Randolph to 
 Bedford upon the subject ? Did Bedford, in England, re- 
 ceive any communication at all from Randolph, who was 
 " about the court ? " If Randolph knew that Mary Stuart 
 had said " she could have no peace," etc., he was seriously 
 derelict in duty in not reporting it to Cecil. We know full 
 well the envious avidity of Elizabeth for the most trifling 
 details concerning Mary Stuart's movements, even when 
 they had not the slightest connection with affairs of state ; 
 we also know the industry with which Randolph ministered 
 to her desire. But here was a serious matter, a question 
 of open war, and it was important that Elizabeth should 
 
84 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 be advised as to Mary's plans concerning the rebellion, 
 which, as we have seen, Elizabeth herself, aided by Murray, 
 had set in motion. Randolph was not a fool, but he would 
 have been weak indeed if he had failed t6 keep his mis- 
 tress advised in so important a crisis as this. He made no 
 such failure. He carefully watched- Mary, and had her 
 watched, for he had spies in Holyrood. And now having 
 information which it was important that Elizabeth, through 
 Cecil, should be possessed of, are we to suppose that he 
 did not send it to London, but to Bedford at Carlisle or at 
 Alnwick ? The proposition is too absurd to discuss, and 
 we are answered by the facts. On the 4th of October, the 
 day previous to the date of Bedford's Alnwick letter, Ran- 
 dolph writes to Cecil, representing Mary as " not only un- 
 certain as to what she should do, but inclined to clement 
 measures, and so undecided as to hope that matters could he 
 arranged'' Does this sound like " deaf to advice " and 
 " breathing vengeance " ? If Mr. Froude had any wish to 
 represent Mary Stuart according to the evidence before 
 him, he would not have thrust aside and ignored this letter 
 of Randolph. It is the testimony of an enemy of Mary 
 Stuart, speaking of his personal knowledge and in the line 
 of his duty. But such testimony does not suit our his- 
 torian. It does not support his Mary Stuart theory. He 
 passes it over in silence, goes to England to be informed 
 of what has taken place in Scotland, and gives us after all 
 a vague statement, a mere on-dit, from which he evolves 
 words which he asserts were spoken by the Queen of Scots. 
 His entire account of the events between the 1st and the 
 15th of October, 1565, is not history, but its caricature. 
 Cecil writing " a private letter of advice " to Mary Stuart ! 
 Cockburn, an English spy, speaking " his mind freely to 
 her ! " De Mauvissiere, the agent of Catherine de INIedicis, 
 her bitterest enemy after Elizabeth and Cecil, " entreat- 
 ing " and expostulating with her ! 
 
 There is another letter in this connection as invisible to 
 
MR. FROUDE'S explanation. 
 
 85 
 
 Mr. Fronde as the Randolph letter of October 4. Mr. 
 Fronde's narrative, defective in dates, is so confus'ed as to 
 conceal the important fact that Mary Stnart did all in her 
 power to maintain peace, and that on the 5th of October, so 
 far from having commenced hostilities, she was still in Edin- 
 burgh, and did not leave Holyrood until the 8th of October, 
 when she addressed an admirable letter to Elizabeth, 
 which we regret our limits will not allow us to insert here. 
 
 In closing, we must express our surprise that Mr. 
 Fronde should have selected for reclamation or protest a 
 matter so comparatively unimportant Our readers must 
 not suppose that the case discussed is an isolated one. In 
 jQur previous articles, we have pointed out scores of more 
 serious errors. Mr. Fronde's insanity for the romantic 
 and picturesque would, as we have already remarked, 
 wreck a far better historian ; and the imaginative power 
 and talent for pictorial embellishment which make his 
 work so attractive to the young and inexperienced inevita- 
 bly involve him in serious difficulty the moment a true 
 historic test is applied to any of his flowery pages. AVill 
 Mr. Fronde seriously apply such a test, and explain to us, 
 for instance, his manipulation of Mary Stuart's letter of 
 April 4, 1566, and give us the original language of the 
 passages which we have denounced as unauthorized ? Will 
 he explain his remarkable arrangement of the members 
 of the phrase at his page 261, vol. viii., " It will be known 
 hereafter," etc.? Will he throw some light on the peine 
 forte et dure — but no, we will not ask that. We acquit 
 Mr. Froude of any intention to misrepresent in that in- 
 stance. It was merely a blunder arising from a strange 
 ignorance of the laws of England. Will he clear up the 
 misleading paucity of dates in the Jedburgh story ? Will 
 he find some authority less untrustworthy than Buchanan 
 for the poisoning story, and for a hundred other statements 
 •repudiated by all respectable historians ? Will he show 
 
86 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 us how it is that " he feared for his life'' is the English 
 translation of " II prend ime peur de recevoir une honte," 
 and how it is that the meanings given in his text of nu- 
 merous Spanish and French passages, which he avoids 
 translating, are so often at daggei-s drawn with the lan- 
 guage of the originals ? How it is that he describes a let- 
 ter from Mary to Elizabeth as one " she wrote with her own 
 hand, fierce, dauntless, and haughty," when, in the letter, 
 Mary expressly excuses herself to Elizabeth for not writ- 
 ing with her own hand ? How it is that he coolly substi- 
 tutes " fled from " for departed, " lords " for ladies, " four 
 thousand ruffians " for four thousand gentlemen f How it 
 is that — but space fails. 
 
 In these cases, we wish to be distinctly understood that 
 we do not charge Mr. Froude with forgery. Heaven for- 
 bid ! We readily, and with reason, find a more charitable 
 explanation. 
 
 There are persons whose sense of sound, or color, or light, 
 or integrity, or morality, is either obtuse or totally absent. 
 We have known people who could not distinguish " Mary 
 in heaven " from " Boyne Water ; " we have heard of 
 others to whom, from color blindness, white and scarlet 
 were identical ; of others who, in lying, believed they spoke 
 the truth ; and others who, like Mr. Froude, could not, 
 for their lives, repeat or correctly quote the words of third 
 persons ; whose minds, in short, " had not yet succeeded 
 in grasping the nature of inverted commas." 
 
 For the last time, we ask Mr. Froude for some contem- 
 porary proof that the Earl of Bedford, or any one else, 
 wrote to Cecil, speaking of Mary Stuart, " She said she 
 could have no peace till she had Murray's or Chatelhe- 
 rault's head." 
 
 We have now obtained from the English Record Office 
 a certified copy of the Bedford letter in question, and ask 
 for it the reader's special attention : — 
 
THE OFFICIAL RECORD. 
 
 87 
 
 STAMP. 
 
 PUBLIC 
 RECORDS. 
 
 
 
 STAMP. 
 
 PUBLIC 
 RECORDS. 
 
 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE COPY. 
 Stale Papers Foreign. Elizabeth, 1565. Vol. 80, No. 1231. 
 
 After my hartie comenda- 
 cons, I have sent" the money 
 to the Lords as moche as the 
 Q. pleas'" was they should have 
 Cap°® Brickwell I sent w* the 
 same, and therew*all to under- 
 stande thoroughely them and 
 their estate he is now retoiirned 
 and bringeth me from the Erie 
 of Murrey the most courteous 
 and frendely Ire that ev I re- 
 ceyved in my lifFe From any 
 other of the Lords he brought 
 none, nor nothing els but most hartie thanks, he founde 
 them all very pensive and dismaied men desperate alto- 
 gether of their weldoing, or of any good successe in this 
 matter. They are so farre entred into the bryers and see- 
 ing so litell helpe come, as knowe not otherwise how to deale 
 or drifte for themselves then by retyring towards Englande 
 and therof also they do not all agree for the Duke wold 
 into Germany or Italia and other otherwhere and being 
 but a fevve in nombre they are allmost of so many sundry 
 opinions, all mislike moche themselves for trusting so moche 
 to o'' aide, arfti do not a litell mervaile what should be the 
 cause that Melvyn cometh not awaye with one answere or 
 other. The Duke was talkd w* all by Cap°® Brickwell, and 
 spake very slenderly of o"" dealings, and as I must saye 
 truely to you not wisely. Therle of Murrey maketh Eng- 
 lande his last ankerholde, and as he hathe so written to me 
 meaneth to come, and that even shortely, for they are no 
 company and will still growe fewer, so as notw*standing o^ 
 aide of men alredy to them y^' shall never be hable nor 
 meane not to encountre w* the Q. His coming cannot be 
 kept secrete, for thoughe he bring not many yet will he not 
 come alone, T meane not at o"" meeting to talke w* him pri- 
 
88 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 vately but in open place. The money he onely receyved w*''^ 
 came in verie good tyme for els had they bene scattered ere 
 nowe. The Countesse his wifFe is as I gess by this tyme 
 upon her coining to Barwick, there as I have written to be 
 delyverd of childe. There is no talke of peace w* that Q. 
 but that she will first have a heade of the Duke or of the 
 p]rle of Murrey. In this hard and pitieful case stand things 
 then and towards tliem most like to growe worsse and 
 worsse, and all they saye is for trusting so moche upon us. 
 
 The Liddesdale men I meane the Elwoods, hold out well 
 and work still for us all that they maye, wherin the L. War- 
 den here hathe traveled very moche to cause them so to do, 
 he kepeth them together at a place called the Hermitage, 
 and notw*standing the working of the Erie of Bothevvell all 
 that he can to the contrary. 
 
 I assure you my L. Warden here, deserveth great thanks 
 for his traveling in this sorte w* them. It were well done 
 that he were encouraged to contynew his well doing by 
 some gentle Ire thence. And so praieng you to hasten ann- 
 swere of all matters heretofore now lately written, w* most 
 hartie thanks I ende and byd you as my selfe Farewell 
 From An wick this 5"^ of Octobere 1565 
 
 yo'"' right assured 
 F. Bedford. 
 
 I feare me that the Mr Maxevvill is not sure and stedfast in 
 this matter to them there, I shall lerne more and shall 
 shewe you by my next 
 
 (Indorsed) (Addressed) 
 S 'H To the Honorable my verie good 
 
 Frende S'" Wilm Cecill Knight 
 
 ^ pq Principall Secretary to the Q. Ma*'® 
 
 sell. 
 
 •§ and one of her H. Privie Coun- 
 
 I certify that the foregoing is a true and authentic copy. 
 
 H. J. Tharpe, . 
 Assist. Keeper of Public Records. 
 
 Uh February, 1871. 
 
THE BEDFORD LETTER. 
 
 89 
 
 It will be perceived the letter is mainly taken up with 
 the Earl of Bedford's statement as to the report made to 
 him by Captain Brickwell, an officer under his command, of 
 what the latter saw and heard in the rebel camp, and con- 
 cerning the condition of Murray and the other rebel lords. 
 Captain Brickwell found them " very pensive and dismaied 
 men, desperate altogether of their weldoing." They mur- 
 mur at the " litell helpe " Elizabeth has sent them. Murray 
 is downcast, Chatelherault is angry, and from them Brick- 
 well receives his information that " There is no talke of 
 peace with that Q." etc. They have been instigated to 
 undertake this rebellion by Elizabeth, and by her promises 
 to aid them. They have been disappointed, and now 
 " spake very slenderly of our dealings." In short, they 
 make, in vulgar phrase, " a poor mouth," in order, by their 
 losses and supposed risk of life, to strengthen their claim 
 upon Elizabeth's sympathies and treasury — two very unex- 
 pansive institutions. 
 
 We are, therefore, really at a loss to understand how it is 
 that Mr. Froude, after his attention had been called to this 
 letter, could make the extraordinary statement that Bed- 
 ford " could only have written on the authority of Ran- 
 dolph." 
 
 "There is no talke of peace with that Q.," clearly 
 comes directly from the rebel lords, being of their own in- 
 vention and by them put in Mary Stuart's mouth. Mr. 
 Froude understands this as well as any one, and yet .he 
 makes this passage his authority for the statements that 
 " at least she would not lose the chance of revenge upon 
 her brother," and for the highly wrought psychological 
 passage already cited.^ 
 
 1 Ante, p. 10. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 QUEEN ELIZABETH AND THE EARL OF MURRAY. 
 
 " Through her whole reign she was a dissembler, a pretender, a hypo- 
 crite." — LoKD Brougham. 
 
 "For his own commoditie," as John Knox has it, 
 Murray had, with aid of English gold and Elizabeth's am- 
 bassador, spun his web of treason in the dark, and when 
 he thought it could be done successfully, had rebelled 
 against his sovereign. His effort failing, he fled to England, 
 as we have seen, and Elizabeth had a very unwelcome guest 
 within her gates. Here is Mr. Fronde's version of these 
 facts : " To sav^ England from a Catholic revolution, and 
 to save England's Queen from the machinations of a dan- 
 gerous rival, the Earl of Murray had taken arms against 
 his sovereign." The result was that " he found himself a 
 fugitive and an outlaw," and " Elizabeth had to encounter 
 from Murray himself the most inconvenient remonstrances," 
 for " Murray, a noble gentleman of stainless honor, was not 
 a person to sit down patiently as the dupe of timidity and 
 fraud." We shall presently see in Murray's whipt-spaniel 
 performance in presence of Elizabeth, to what extent he 
 could " sit down patiently." 
 
 " Mary Stuart," continues our historian, " having failed to 
 take or kill Murray, was avenging herself on his wife ; and 
 the first news which Murray heard after reaching England 
 was that Lady Murray had been driven from her home, was 
 wandering shelterless in the woods," etc. (viii. 216.) 
 
 The riddle of this story should be read together with 
 this other (viii. 251), although the two are so far apart that 
 
QUEEN ELIZABETH'S CONTRIBUTION. 
 
 91 
 
 no connection between them would at first be suspected. 
 Mary " called Randolph before the Council, charged him 
 with holding intercourse with her rebels, and bade him be- 
 gone." Here is the explanation. In February, Randolph 
 had sent Elizabeth's little contribution in aid of the rebel- 
 lion, — three sealed bags, each containing 3,000 crowns, — 
 to be delivered to Murray's wife. (Here we see England's 
 Queen suffering from " the machinations of a dangerous 
 rival.") The messenger was one Johnstone, a confidential 
 agent of Murray, who, being " noble and stainless," had a 
 delicacy in personally appearing in such a transaction. His 
 wife took the post of danger, received the money, and as- 
 sumed the responsibility of treason by giving a writing to 
 the effect that the bags of coin had been delivered. The 
 agent Johnstone revealed the transaction, and Lady Murray 
 did not wander about the woods, but leisurely took com- 
 fortable refuge with her English friends at Berwick. Mary 
 immediately summoned Randolph before her Council, and 
 reproached him with abusing his official position by foment- 
 ing discord and supplying her rebel subjects with money , 
 to war against her. Randolph denied the charge, but was 
 immediately confronted with Johnstone, silenced, and or- 
 dered to be conducted under guard to the frontier. " The 
 opportunity was ill-selected," pronounces Mr. Froude, who 
 throughout his work appears to labor under the impression 
 that Mary was the vassal of Elizabeth. One might sup- 
 pose that when an ambassador is guilty of such an outrage 
 as that of Randolph, the precise moment to dismiss him is 
 when he is detected in his villainy. But this is not our 
 historian's meaning. It must be constantly borne in mind 
 by the reader, that with Mr. Froude everything done by 
 an enemy of Mary Stuart is well done, and infamy becomes 
 virtue. 
 
 Randolph's insolent attitude towards Mary is explained 
 by his letter to Leicester and his certainty of the execu- 
 tion of the plot to assassinate Riccio. Although ordered 
 
92 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 to depart by Mary, he sought to evade the mandate and to 
 dally until the perpetration of the murder, and would not 
 stir until a guard was at his door to show him the road 
 to England. This is why Mr. Froude finds the moment 
 " ill-selected " for his dismissal.^ 
 
 Here is a roseate sketch of bribery, falsehood, and 
 treason : — 
 
 " Elizabeth had been for some time recovering her firmness ; she 
 had sent Murray money /or his private necessities;^ in the mid- 
 dle of February she had so far overcome both her economy and 
 timidity that she supplied him with a thousand pounds, ' to be 
 employed in the common cause and maintenance of religion,' 
 and before she had heard of the treatment of Randolph, she had 
 taken courage to write with something of her old manner to the 
 Queen herself." (viii. 251.) 
 
 And here a few words as to Elizabeth's connection with 
 this rebellion. The historian Lingard truly states the 
 case : " She shrank from the infamy of being the aggressor 
 in a war which the rest of Europe would not fail to attribute 
 , to female pique and unjustifiable resentment." He might 
 have added that in avoiding that infamy she rushed into a 
 score of others, if possible, worse. Even Mr. Froude speaks 
 of Elizabeth's conduct in these terms : " Elizabeth had 
 given her word, but it was an imperfect security," shows 
 her " struggling with her ignominy, only to flounder deeper 
 into distraction and dishonor," and tells us " she stooped 
 to a deliberate lie. De Foix had heard of the £3,000,^ 
 and had ascertained beyond doubt that it had been sent 
 from the treasury ; yet, when he questioned Elizabeth about 
 it, she took refuge behind Bedford, and swore she had sent 
 
 1 Lodge describes Randolph as "of a dark, intriguing spirit, full of 
 cunning, and void of conscience," and adds, " Tliere is little doubt that 
 the unhappy divisions in Scotland were chiefly fomented by this man's 
 artifices for more than twenty years together." — Lodge's Illustrations of 
 British History, vol. i. p. 431. 
 
 2 Here we obtain a glimpse of Johnstone's three sealed bags of specie. 
 8 Another sum sent to Murray. 
 
REGINA CCELI. 
 
 93 
 
 no money to the lords at all." Further, " her policy was 
 pursued at the expense of her honor," and so on — usque 
 *ad nausea?!! — up to the time when, on Murray's arrival 
 in London after the failure of his foul treachery, Elizabeth 
 sent for him, " and arranged in a private interview the 
 comedy which she was about to enact." (viii. 219.) This 
 comedy was his appearance, next day, before Elizabeth, 
 who, in the presence of two foreign ambassadors, delivered 
 a long harangue on the enormity of his offense in rebel- 
 ling against his sovereign — a rebellion gotten up at her 
 instigation, and for which she had paid him in money ! 
 A more stupendous budget of mendacity it would be diffi- 
 cult to find anywhere recorded, even taking Mr. Froude's 
 account of it. (viii. 222-224.) Elizabeth fitly crowned 
 this performance by writing to Mary with her own hand : — 
 
 "I have communicated fully to Randolph all that passed at 
 my interview with one of your subjects, which I hope will satisfy 
 you, wishing that your ears had heard the honor and affection 
 which I manifested toward you, to the complete disproof of what 
 is said that I supported your rebel subjects against you — which 
 will ever be very far from my heart, being too great an ignominy 
 for a princess to tolerate, much more to do." 
 
 Just as we finish transcribing these lines, our eye acci- 
 dentally falls on a passage in Mr. Froude's eleventh volume, 
 page 20, in which, speaking of Elizabeth's portraits, he 
 says she was sometimes represented " as the Christian 
 Regina Coeli, whose nativity fell close to her own birthday, 
 and whose functions, as the virgin of Protestantism, she was 
 supposed to supersede." 
 
 We must here thank the historian for a prolonged and 
 hearty laugh whose ripples will, we fear, disturb our work 
 for hours to come. 
 
 A few pages back we are told of Elizabeth's mendacity, 
 dishonor, and ignominy. Does the reader suppose that by 
 " recovering her firmness," is meant that she would leave 
 off lying and subornation of treason ? Not at all. It isi 
 
94 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 only -when she blunders in her mendacity or is clumsy in 
 her villainy that her historian becomes anxious. 
 
 Elizabeth " recovers her firmness " when her plots prom-* 
 ise success. Meantime Mary, as is admitted in a moment 
 of forgetfulness, was " all unconscious of the deadly coil 
 which was gathering round her." But Cecil, Leicester, 
 and Elizabeth were fully aware of it. Nearly a month be- 
 fore the murder Randolph writes to Leicester, for Eliza- 
 beth's eye : — 
 
 " I know that there are practices in hand, contrived between 
 father and son (Lennox and Darnley), to come to the crown 
 against her (Mary . Stuart's) will. I know that if that take ef- 
 fect which is intended, David (Riccio), with the consent of the 
 king, shall have his throat cut within these ten days. Many 
 things grievouser and worse than these are brought to my ears ; 
 yea, of things intended against her own person, which, because I 
 think better to keep secret than to write to Isli. Secretary, I speak 
 of them but now to your lordship." 
 
 Warning of common humanity there was none. The re- 
 sult to Mary was most certainly to be the loss of her crown, 
 and, most probably, the lives of herself and her unborn 
 babe. This is clear from Randolph's letter, (viii. 254.) 
 
 The details were all in London before the blow was 
 struck. Murrai/'s name was first on the bond for the 
 "slaughter of David." Generally, the objects of the con- 
 spirators were the establishment and maintenance of reli- 
 gion, the return of Murray and the other rebel lords, the de- 
 position of the Queen, and the elevation of Darnley, " with 
 crown matrimonial," to the vacant throne, where the " idiot " 
 would be a puppet in their hands, to keep there or break as 
 best might suit them. Riccio had been Darnley's personal 
 friend, and had done everything in his power to promote 
 his marriage with the Queen, but could not be brought over 
 to Darnley's views for obtaining the crown. Conceiving 
 Riccio to be the only obstacle in his way, he was ready to 
 be rid of him. Darnley's father, Lennox, deep in the con- 
 
THE MURDER PLOT. 
 
 95 
 
 spiracy, rode to Newcastle with the bonds (Mr. Fronde 
 says they were "carried by swift messengers," and cannot 
 see Lennox) for signature of Murray and his friends, and, 
 authorized by Elizabeth (note that he was then outlawed in 
 England), went on to London. 
 
 Parliament was to meet in the first week of March. 
 The attainder of Murray and the other rebel lords would 
 then be passed and their estates forfei ted. Here was at once 
 their motive and their spur to prompt action. Mr. Froude 
 says that Morton signed " in a paroxysm of anger " (viii. 
 250), but does not say that his price was the patrimony of 
 the earldom of Angus. Riccio was to be killed in presence 
 of the Queen. He could have been " dispatched " anywhere 
 else, but the conspirators preferred it thus. It suits Mr. 
 Froude's purpose to accept Ruthven's statement that the 
 suggestion came from Darnley. It came from a man of 
 more intelligence than Darnley. The Queen was then in 
 the sixth month of her pregnancy. Armed men were 
 suddenly to rush into her presence and slay a human being 
 before her eyes, and there was a 'probability she might not 
 survive it. 
 
 Elizabeth, imitating her father in a similar transaction, 
 would, of course, find herself " obliged to look at facts as 
 they were rather than through conventional forms," and 
 the bond provided that " failing of succession of our sover- 
 eign lady, the just title of " the said noble prince (Darnley) 
 to the crown of Scotland should be maintained." 
 
 " Ritzio's name was not mentioned ; there was nothing in them 
 (the bonds) to show that more was intended than a forcible rev- 
 olution on the meeting of Parliament ; and such as they were, 
 they were promptly signed by Murray and his friends." (viii. 
 250.) 
 
 Only "a forcible revolution" — a mere trifle, you see. 
 " Such as they were," for we could never consent to have a 
 stainless Murray sign a bond for assassination. But five 
 lines further on we learn : " It need not be siipposed that 
 
96 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 the further secret was unknown to any of them, but it was 
 undesirable to commit the darker features of the plot to 
 formal writing." It is admitted (p. 250) that the English 
 government had been informed a month beforehand of the 
 formation of the plot. On the 6th of March, Bedford and 
 Randolph write to Cecil repeating all the details of a con- 
 spiracy designed with diabolical ingenuity for the destruc- 
 tion, not only of Riccio, but of the Queen, her offspring, 
 and her husband. 
 
 A general fast had been ordered by the Kirk at Edin- 
 burgh, which drew crowds of disaffected zealots even from 
 distant parts of the country. It was noted that during 
 the week the sermons were on such lessons and texts from 
 the Old Testament as might be supposed to warrant the 
 slaughter of the idolater, and God's sudden judgments on 
 the enemies of his chosen people. 
 
 Several well known members of John Knox's congrega- 
 tion were in the conspiracy and present at the murder. It 
 is not necessary to enter into the disputed question of John 
 Knox's participation in the deed. Suffice it to say, that 
 he disappeared from Edinburgh, with the conspirators, and 
 has himself recorded his hearty approved of Riccio's as- 
 sassination. 
 
 In his statement of the circumstances of the plot for 
 the murder, Mr. Froude dwells on every injurious insinu- 
 ation against Mary Stuart. Referring to a calumnious in- 
 vention, falsely attributed to Darnley (viii. 248), he is of 
 opinion that " Darnley's word was not a good one ; he was 
 capable of inventing such a story;" that "Mary's treatment 
 of him went, it is likely, no further than coldness or con- 
 tempt ; " but nevertheless he strives to convey the worst 
 impression against her. And this too in spite of his own 
 admission and the positive manner in which the invention 
 " is rejected even by Mary Stuart's enemies. 
 
 Malcolm Laing, one of the most unscrupulous of them, 
 says: "I inquire not in Rizzio's familiarity with Mary; of 
 that there is no proof now, but her husband's suspicions." 
 
DARNLEY.'S JEALOUSY. 
 
 97 
 
 Tytler says : " Darnley had the folly to become the dupe 
 of a more absurd delusion ; he became jealous of the 
 Italian secretary." 
 
 Hume speaks of the belief as " unreasonable, if not 
 absurd." 
 
 Burton is of the opinion that "further than this (fasci- 
 nating Rizzio as she did all men) she is not likely to have 
 gone." (Vol. iv. p. 300.) 
 
 Even John Knox says not a word to intimate guilty rela- 
 tions between Mary and Riccio. Buchanan alone brougjit 
 it forward. De Thou and others copy him. 
 
 The question is not seriously controverted. 
 
 Robertson says : " Of all our historians, Buchanan alone 
 avowedly accuses Mary of a criminal love for Rizzio." 
 
 Sir Walter Scott treats " the gross impeachment " as " a 
 fiction of later date," and declares the Queen's name un- 
 tainted with reproach till it was connected with that of 
 Bothwell. 
 
 The Protestant Episcopal Bishop Keith ("Affairs of 
 Church and State in Scotland ") says : " The vile aspersion 
 of the Queen's honor, as entertaining a criminal famil- 
 iarity with the ugly, ill-favored Rizzio, deserves not to be 
 regarded." (Vol. ii. p. 396.) 
 
 If Mr. Froude has a " vivid pen," he also has a light one. 
 He glides delicately over the character of the conspiracy 
 to kill Riccio, and manages to veil the real motives,^ which 
 were political, and industriously works up notorious inven- 
 tions aimed at Mary Stuart's character. 
 
 1" In this conspiracy," says the Scotch historian Robertson, " there is one 
 circumstance which, though somewhat detached, deserves not to be for- 
 gotten. In the confederacy between the king and the conspirators, the 
 real intention of which was assassination, the preserving of the Reformed 
 Church is, nevertheless, one of the most considerable articles." (Vol. i. p. 
 373.) 
 
 7 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 " What a wonderful history it is ! and wonderful indeed is it, with its 
 vivid pictures," etc. — Mrs. Muloch Craik. 
 
 " On the 9th of March, Riccio was murdered in the presence of the Queen, 
 who was made a prisoner in her own palace." — W. Edmonstoune Ay- 
 
 TOUN. 
 
 Too many persons, nowadays, prefer history so written 
 as to be as " interesting as a novel." For such readers, 
 looking at it as a mere work of art, and without reference 
 to the facts, the murder scene is admirably described by 
 Mr. Froude. (viii. 257, et seq.) One serious drawback is 
 his insatiable desire for embellishment. For the mere pur- 
 pose of description none is needed. The subject is full to 
 overflowing of the finest dramatic material. The result of 
 his narration is very remarkable. He skillfully manages 
 to centre the reader's sympathy and admiration on the as- 
 sassin Ruthven, and, with device of phrase and glamour 
 of type, places the sufferer and victim of an infamous bru- 
 tality in the light of a woman who is merely undergoing 
 Bome well-merited chastisement.^ The whole scene as pic- 
 tured rests on the testimony of the leading assassin (Ruth- 
 ven), which, in defiance of the plainest rules of evidence, 
 is boldly accepted as perfectly authentic. And even this 
 testimony is garbled before it reaches the historian, for 
 Chalmers shows (ii. 352) that the account given as by 
 Ruthven and Morton, dated April 30th, is the revised and 
 corrected copy of what they sent to Cecil on the 2d of 
 April, asking him to make such changes as he saw fit be- 
 
 1 " We recoil from the brutality, alike of him who planned and of those 
 who calmly undertook to execute an action so brutal and unmanly." — Sir 
 Walter Scott. ^ 
 
MURDER OF RICCIO. 
 
 99 
 
 fore circulating it in Scotland and England. Their note 
 of April 2d still exists ; but Mr. Froude does not allude 
 to it. , 
 
 Tims we have the story from the chief murderer, amended 
 and edited by Cecil and embellished by Mr. Froude, who, 
 while admitting that " the recollection of a person who had 
 just been concerned in so tremendous a scene was not 
 likely to be very exact" (viii. 261), nevertheless adopts 
 the version of that person in preference to all others. But 
 if we must perforce have Ruthven's (Gecil's),^ why not give 
 it as it is, sparing us such inventions as " turning on Darn- 
 ley as on a snake," and " could she have trampled him into 
 dust upon the spot, she would have done it." Mr. Froude 
 is all himself here, and continues : — 
 
 " Catching sight of the empty scabbard at his side, she asked 
 him where his dagger was. . He said he did not know. ' It loill 
 he known hereafter; it shall be dear blood to some of you if David's 
 be spilt.' " 
 
 This is a specimen of able workmanship. According to 
 Keith, Mary's answer was, " It will be known hereafter." ^ 
 According to Ellis, Mary had previously/ said to Ruthven, 
 " Well,s;iyeth she," speaking to Ruthven," it shall be deare 
 blude to some of you." (Ellis, vol. ii. p. 212.) Now, let the 
 reader observe that Mr. Froude takes these two phrases, 
 found in two different authorities, addressed separately to 
 two different persons, reverses the order in which they are 
 spoken, and puts them into one sentence, which he makes 
 ]\Iary address to Darnley ! Do you see why so much in- 
 
 1 " Ruthven's narrative " of the murder is a pamphlet written by Cecil, 
 published "from aa original manuscript," at London, in 1699. Cecil be- 
 ing himself an accessary before the murder, naturally took a deep interest 
 in its histor}'. It is on the strength of this " narrative " that Ruthven is in- 
 cluded by Horace Walpole iii his Royal and Noble Authors, but the narra- 
 tive is not in the speech of Ruthven. It is the careful phrase of Cecil. 
 
 2 "The Queen inquired at the King where his dagger was? who an- 
 swered that he wist not well. ' Well,' said the Queen, ' it will be known 
 hereafter.' " — Keith^ vol. iii. p. 273. ^ 
 
100 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 dustry and ingenuity should be exerted ? Because in this 
 form the phrase is a threat of murder ; and thus the foun- 
 dation is laid broad and deep in the reader's mind for the 
 belief that, from that moment, Mary has a design .upon 
 Darnley's life.-^ 
 
 The artist of this mosaic of malice chooses not to see 
 that the real threat meaning mischief to Darnley, and after- 
 wards actually carried out, was the menace of Ruthven, who, 
 breaking into anger at what he feared was duplicity on 
 Darnley's part, told him that " what should follow and what 
 blood should be shed should come on his head and that of 
 his posterity, not on theirs." 
 
 As to Mary's threat, Mr. Burton is of opinion (with Mr, 
 Froude's version before him) that, " if better vouched,'^ it 
 would be formidable evidence of her intention, (iv. 313, 
 note.) 
 
 One thing Mr. Froude does state correctly. We mean 
 Mary's words when told that Riccio was dead. In her 
 fright, anguish, and horror, she ejaculated, " Poor David! 
 good and faithful servant ! May God have mercy on your 
 soul ! " To those who know the human heart, this involun- 
 tary description of the precise place poor David occupied 
 in Mary's esteem is more than answer to the historian's 
 indecent note at page 261, and his malevolent insinuations 
 on all his pages. Mary struggled to the window to speak 
 to armed citizens who had flocked to her assistance. " Sit 
 down ! " cried one of the ruffian lords to her. " If you stir, 
 you shall be cut into collops, and flung over the walls." A 
 prisoner in the hands of these brutal assassins, after the 
 unspeakable outrages to which she had been subjected, Mr. 
 Froude yet has the perverse art of placing her before his 
 readers in the light of a wicked woman deprived of her 
 
 1 The reader may see (viii. 376) where he tells of the murder of Darn- 
 ley, how effectually Mr. Froude cites his own invention as a historical 
 fact: " So at last came Sunday, eleven months exactly from the day of 
 Ritzio's murder; and Mary Stuart's words, that she Avould never rest until 
 that dark businew was revenged, were about to be fulfilled." 
 
MURDER OF RICCIO. 
 
 101 
 
 liberty for her own good. When night came Riithven 
 called Darnley away, and the Queen was left to her rest 
 in the scene of the late tragedy ; and, adds our historian 
 with perfect equanimity, " The ladies of her court were for- 
 bidden to enter, and Mary Stuart was locked alone into 
 her room, amidst the traces of the fray, to seek such repose 
 as she could find." This is true, and in that blood-stained 
 place she passed the night alone. 
 
 " They had caged their bird," goes festively on our histo- 
 rian, his style never so sparkling with bright enjoyment 
 as when recounting some insult or outrage to Mary Stuart ; 
 but they " knew little of the temper which they had under- 
 taken to control. (" Undertaken to control," is here posi- 
 tively delicious !) " Behind that grace of form there lay a 
 nature like a panther's, merciless and beautiful." She is 
 first a snake, then a bird, now a panther, (viii. 265.) We 
 have seen a panther's skin admired, but we never before 
 heard that the animal had a beautiful nature. Such are the 
 reflections suggested to Mr. Froude's sympathetic mind by 
 the horrible scenes he has just described. One instinctively 
 trembles for those lambs, the lords, with such a panther 
 near them. All this time Mr. Froude takes no further 
 notice of Mary's physical condition than to treat the neces- 
 sary results, which, almost miraculously, were not fatal, as 
 " trick and policy." (viii. 266.) The Queen was then in 
 
 1 The following criticism has been thrust upon us touching this passage: 
 " No, he was not killed in that room but outside." Our volunteer friend 
 is perhaps ignorant of the fact that George Douglas stabbed Riccio in the 
 Queen's presence, and that Ker of Faudonside held a pistol to her breast. 
 These two were, therefore, exempted from the pardon extended to the other 
 murderers. He is also probably not aware that when the " slaughter of 
 Davie" was finished, Ruthven again intruded himself into the Queen's pres- 
 ence, this time with garments stained with the blood, not only of Riccio, 
 but of his own associates, who in their blind fury had stabbed each other as 
 well as their victim. He can now probably understand why we speak of 
 " that blood-stained place." We would also remind him that serious histor- 
 ical scholars really look upon Henry VUI. as something of a tyrant, and 
 have long ceased to designate Mary Tudor as "Bloody Mary." The epi- 
 thet is in vogue in the " lower form." ^ 
 
102 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 the sixth month of her pregnancy, and the possible conse- 
 quences of the horrible tragedy thus thrust suddenly before 
 her eyes were not unforeseen. The conspirators in their 
 bonds had expressly provided for the contingency of her 
 death} 
 
 And now we are shown Mary forming the wicked design 
 of escaping, of actually eloping with her husband ! She is 
 described as playing, and "working upon him," and even 
 appealing to him through the child — his child." Mr. 
 Froude further charges that the Queen had wormed the 
 secret from Darnley, who told her who were in the plot ; 
 that she then " played upon him like an instrument," — 
 " she showed him that if he remained with the lords he 
 would be a tool in their hands." 
 
 Really one stands appalled at the revelation of such 
 wickedness. But there is worse to come. " As the dusk 
 closed in, a troop of horse appeared on the road from 
 Dunbar. In a few moments more the Earl of Murray was 
 at the gate." (viii. 267.) He had ridden, not from Dunbar, 
 but from Newcastle, where, like a less distinguished poli- 
 tician of modern times, he had been " watching and waiting 
 just over the Border " for the signal of success in the mur- 
 der, and from which place he wrote to Cecil, just before 
 starting (March 8), that he and the rest of his company 
 were " summoned home for the weal of religion." 
 
 Murray was the real head of this murder plot, and the 
 negotiator between the assassins and the English govern- 
 ment. Bedford and Randolph, writing from Scotland to the 
 English Privy Council (March 27, 1566), transmit a full list 
 of the conspirators, and add, " My Lord of Murray, by a 
 special servant sent unto us, desireth your honour's favor 
 for these nobill men as his dear friends and such as for his 
 sake hath given this adventure.'' 
 
 1 "For she being big -with child," says Melville, who was then at Holy- 
 rood, "it appeared to be done to destroy both her and her child; for they 
 might have killed the said Eiccio in any other part at any time they 
 pleased." — Memoirs^ p. 66. 
 
MURRAY VOTES "DEATH." 
 
 103 
 
 And the letter is marked as " touching the death of 
 David Rizzio and ^lurray's privity thereto." Mr. Froude 
 is too hasty in his narrative here, and neglects to tell us 
 that on entering the city from the road to Dunbar, Murray 
 rode with his troop straight to the parliament house. It 
 was the day he was summoned to appear there or suffer 
 attainder. That was part of his business in Edinburgh ; and 
 he expressed great surprise' on hearing that Darnley, with- 
 out any authority, had prorogued the Parliament, and that 
 Riccio had been killed. 
 
 Then, Mary is " the accomplished actress ; " but Murray 
 has " a free and generous nature." " The depth of her fall 
 touched him, and he shed tears." Who is acting here ? 
 We might give some facts as stated by Mary Stuart in a 
 letter written at this time, but as Mr. Froude warns us that 
 such a letter is a " suspected source," we refrain. Ruthven, 
 stained with the blood of the Laird of Kincleugh, whom he 
 had slain to prevent his gaining the favorable decision of 
 the judges in a lawsuit, dripping with the slaughter of 
 Riccio, and disgraced by his foul outrage on a lady and his 
 sovereign, is, on the contrary, for Mr. Froude, a perfectly 
 competent and credible witness. That night there was a 
 conclave of the assassins, and on the question of Mary's 
 life or death, Murray voted for her death, "otherwise there 
 could be no security for religion if she were restored to regal 
 authority." (Blackwood's " Life of Mary," Maitland Club 
 edition.) By religion he meant the church lands they had 
 appropriated. Murray, " free and generous," further said 
 that delays were dangerous, and " there was no time to 
 dally." 
 
 " Some measure of this sort " (death or imprisonment), says 
 Mr. Froude, philosophically, " had heen implied in the very 
 nature of their enterprise'^ (viii. 268) ; but it appears that, 
 " fool and coward as they knew Darnley to be, they had not 
 fathomed the depth of his imbecility and baseness." 
 
 And now Mary escapes from the hands of her would-be 
 
104 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 assassins, leaving Mr. Froude utterly inconsolable, but for 
 the fact that her midnight ride gives him (viii. 270) the 
 opportunity of executing (tempo agitato) a spirited fanta- 
 sia on his historic lyre in the description of the gallop 
 of the fleeing cavalcade.^ It sounds like a faint echo of 
 Burger's " Lenore." Then he gives credit without stint to 
 Mary's iron fortitude and intellectual address. He is entirely 
 too liberal in this regard. Instead of riding " away, away, 
 past Seton," she stopped there for refreshments and the 
 escort of two hundred armed cavaliers under Lord Seton, 
 who was advised of her coming. Then, too, the letter she 
 " wrote with her own hand, fierce, dauntless, and haughty," 
 to Elizabeth, and which Mr. Froude so minutely describes 
 — " The strokes thick, and slightly uneven from excite- 
 ment, but strong, firm, and without sign »f trembling ! " 
 This insanity for the picturesque and romantic would wreck 
 a far better historian. The prosaic fact is, that although, 
 as Mr. Froude states, the letter may be seen in the Rolls 
 House, Mary Stuart did not write it It was written by an 
 amanuensis, the salutation and signature alone being in her 
 hand. This question was, in 1869, the subject of some con- 
 troversy, in Paris and London, and M. Wiesener, a dis- 
 tinguished French historical writer, requested Messrs. 
 Joseph Stevenson and A. Crosby, of the Record Ofiice, to 
 examine the letter and give their opinion. Their reply 
 was, " The body of the document is most certainly not in 
 Mary's handwriting." 
 
 But, after all, there was no occasion for controversy, and 
 still less for Mr. Froude's blunder. If he had ever read 
 
 1 *' The moon was clear and full." " The Queen with incredible animosity 
 was mounted en croup behind Sir Arthur Erskine, upon a beautiful English 
 double gelding," "the King on a courser of Naples;" and "then away, 
 away — past Restalriug, past Arthur's Seat, across the bridge and across 
 the field of Musselburgh, past Seton, past Prestonpans, fast as their horses 
 could speed;" "six in all — their majesties, Erskine, Traquair, and a 
 chamberer of the Queen." " In two hours the heavy gates of Dunbar had 
 closed behind them, and Mary Stuart was safe." 
 
LETTER TO ELIZABETH. 
 
 105 
 
 the letter (three printed octavo pages, LabanofF, ^ vol. i. p. 
 335), he would have seen that Mary said, — 
 
 " We thought to have written you this letter with our own 
 hand, that thereby you might have better understood all our 
 meaning and taken more familiarly therewith ; but of truth we 
 are so tired and ill at ease, what through riding of twenty miles 
 in five hours of the night as with the frequent sickness and indis- 
 position by occasion of our child, that we could not at this time, 
 as we were willing to have done." 
 
 " Twenty miles in two hours," says Mr. Froude. Twenty 
 miles in five hours, modestly writes Mary Stuart^ Fortu- 
 nately, we have been warned by Mr. Froude against testi- 
 mony from that " suspected source " — Mary Stuart's let- 
 ters. 
 
 An interesting example of curious historical handicraft 
 occurs but a few pages after the letter which the Queen did 
 not write from Dunbar. Our historian professes to give 
 the substance of a letter of Mary Stuart written to Eliza- 
 beth after her return to Edinburgh. 
 
 Here is the letter, side by side with Mr. Froude's version 
 of it.^ We select this out of numerous cases, for the reason 
 that LabanofF is more readily accessible than other author- 
 ities treated in like manner by Mr. Froude. 
 
 MR. FROUDE'S STATEMENT TRANSLATION OF THE 
 
 ORIGINAL LETTER. 
 
 Of the contents of a letter of 
 April 4th, 1566, from Mary "Edinburgh, ^;)n7 4, 1566.'* 
 Stuart to Queen Elizabeth. (The opening paragraph is 
 (See vol. viii. p. 282.) of formal salutation and compli- 
 
 ment and acknowledged recep- 
 " In an autograph letter of pas- tion of Elizabeth's "favorable 
 sionate gratitude, Mary Stuart dispatch " by Melville.) 3 
 placed herself, as it were, under " When Melville arrived, he 
 her sister's protection ; she told found me but lately escaped 
 her that, in tracing the history from the hands of the greatest 
 
 1 See Appendix No. 5. 2 Labanoff, vol. vii. p. 300. 
 
 8 Sir Robert Melville, Mary's ambassador to Elizabeth. She could not 
 have made a more imprudent choice. He was one of the worst traitors 
 about her, and in reality the agent of the conspirators and of Murray. 
 
106 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 of the late conspii-acy, slie had 
 found that the lords had in- 
 tended to imprison her for life ; 
 and if England or France came 
 to her assistance, they had 
 meant to kill her.' She im- 
 plored Elizabeth to shut her ears 
 to the calumnies which they loould 
 spread against her, and icith en- 
 gaging frankness she hegged that 
 the past might he forgotten ; she 
 had experienced too deeply the 
 ingratitude of those by whom 
 she was surrounded to allow her- 
 self to be tempted any more into 
 dangerous enterprises; for her 
 own part, she was resolved never 
 to give offense to her good sister 
 again ; nothing should be wanting 
 to restore the happy relations 
 which had once existed between 
 them ; and should she recover 
 safely from her confinement, she 
 hoped that in the summer Eliza- 
 beth would make a progress to 
 the north, and that at last she 
 might have an opportunity of 
 thanking her in person for her 
 kindness and forbearance. 
 
 "This letter was sent by the 
 hands of a certain Thornton, a 
 confidential agent of Mary 
 Stuart, who had been employed 
 on messages to Rome. ' A very 
 evil and naughty person, whom 
 I pray you not to believe,' was 
 Bedford's credential for him in 
 a letter of the 1st of April to 
 Cecil. He was on his way to 
 Rome again on this present oc- 
 casion. 
 
 traitors on earth, in the manner 
 in which the bearer will com- 
 municate, with a true account 
 of their most secret plot, which 
 was, that even in case the es- 
 caped lords and other, nobles, 
 aided by you or by any other 
 prince, undertook to rescue me, 
 they would cut me in pieces and 
 throw me over the wall. Judge 
 for yourself the cruel undertak- 
 ings of subjects against her who 
 can sincerely boast that she 
 never did them harm. Since 
 then, however, our good sub- 
 jects have counseled with us, 
 ready to offer their lives in sup- 
 port of justice ; and we have, 
 therefore, returned to this city 
 to chastise some of its people 
 guilty of this great crime. 
 
 " Meantime, we remain in this 
 castle, as our messenger will 
 more fully give you to under- 
 stand. 
 
 Above all other things, I would 
 especially pray you carefully to 
 see that yovu' agents on the Bor- 
 der comply with your good in- 
 tentions towards me, and, abid- 
 ing by our treaty of peace, ex- 
 pel those who have sought my 
 life from their territory, where 
 the leaders in this noted act are 
 as well received as if your in- 
 tention were the worst possi- 
 ble (la pire du monde}, and the 
 very reverse of what I know it 
 to be. 
 
 " I have also heard that the 
 Count (Earl) of Morton is with 
 
LETTER TO ELIZABETH. 
 
 107 
 
 " The public in Scotland sup- 
 posed that he was sent to con- 
 sult the pope on the possibility 
 of divorcing Darnley, and it is 
 remarkable that the Queen of 
 Scots at the close of her own 
 letter desired Elizabeth to give 
 credit to him on some secret 
 matter which he would com- 
 municate to her. She perhaps 
 hoped that Elizabeth would now 
 assist her in the dissolution of 
 a marriage which she had been 
 so anxious to prevent." 
 
 you. I beg of you to arrest 
 and send him to me, or at least 
 compel him to return to Scot- 
 land, by depriving him of safe- 
 guard in England. Doubtless 
 he will not fail to make false 
 statements to excuse himself ; 
 statements which you will find 
 neither true nor probable. I 
 ask of you, my good sister, to 
 oblige me in all these matters, 
 with the assurance that I have 
 experienced so much ingrati- 
 tude from my own people that 
 / shall never offend by a similar 
 fault. And to fully affirm our 
 original friendship, I would ask 
 of you in any event (quoique 
 Dieu m'envoie) to add the favor 
 of standing as godmother for 
 my child. I moreover hope 
 that, if I should recover by the 
 month of July, and you should 
 make your progress as near to 
 my territory as I am informed 
 you will, to go, if agreeable, and 
 thank you myself, which above 
 all things I desire to do. (Then 
 follow apologies for bad writing, 
 for which, she says, her condi- 
 tion must excuse her, the usual 
 compliments in closing a let- 
 ter, and wishes for Elizabeth's 
 health and prosperity.) 
 
 " Postscript. I beseech your 
 kindness in ^ matter I have 
 charged the bearer to ask you 
 for me ; and furthermore, I will 
 soon write you specially (et cm 
 resteje vous depecTierai bientot ex- 
 
108 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 pres), to thank you and to know 
 your intention, if it pleases you, 
 to send me some other minister, 
 whom I may receive as resident, 
 who would be more desirous of 
 promoting our friendship than 
 Randall i has been found to be." 
 
 "We leave the reader to form his own estimate of this 
 method of writing history. Instead of a letter of " pas- 
 sionate gratitude," written spontaneously, as insinuated, it 
 turns out to be the answer to a dispatch just received from 
 Elizabeth. Mary's attitude and language are dignified 
 and independent, and the missive, so far from having any 
 prayer for forbearance in its tone, is plainly one of com- 
 plaint and warning to Elizabeth, couched, it is true, in 
 terms of politeness. The main subject, " above all other 
 things," is the hospitable reception accorded to Riccio's 
 murderers in England, and l^jlzabeth is delicately but 
 emphatically reminded of her duty and of the violation 
 of it by her border agents. The passages of Mr. Froude's 
 version marked in italics have no existence in Mary's letter, 
 and are of his own invention. Mary Stuart says that she 
 has experienced so much ingratitude from her own (peo- 
 ple) that she would never offend any one by similarly sin- 
 ning. (J'ai tant eprouve Vingratitude des miens que je 
 rH off enserai jamais de semhlahle peche.) Mr. Froude makes 
 of this the strange translation that she had experienced 
 too deeply the ingratitude, etc., "to allow herself to be 
 tempted any more into dangerous enterprises." What dan- 
 gerous enterprises ? The murder of Riccio ? Was she 
 guilty of that too ? Was it her midnight escape ? Mr. 
 Froude alone has the secret ! And then the postscript ? 
 Randolph had not only offended, but deeply injured her, 
 and she wishes Elizabeth to understand that he must not 
 be sent back to Scotland. 
 
 1 His name was Randall — not Randolph, as he was, and is usually 
 called. 
 
MURDER OF BLACK. 
 
 109 
 
 It is found " remarkable " that Mary, in her postscript, 
 desires Elizabeth to receive communication of some verbal 
 matter (not secret, as stated) from the messenger. But the 
 same request occurs twice in the body of the letter. Mr. 
 Froude is, of course, accurately informed as to the hidden 
 meaning of the postscript, and settles the matter with 
 what " public opinion supposed," and his usual " perhaps." 
 
 This is also an invention of the historian. He supposes 
 the supposition ! Then, too, his " evil and naughty person " 
 is uncalled for ; for we know that it was Bedford's busi- 
 ness, as it is this historian's calling, to judge any messenger 
 of Mary Stuart to be " evil and naughty." In all this, the 
 intelligent reader will see that, as Mr. Froude (viii. 261) 
 lays the foundation of a plan of revenge by Mary against 
 Darnley, so he here strives to fasten upon her the resolu- 
 tion of obtaining a divorce, all going to make cumulative 
 evidence to be used when we come to the Darnley murder. 
 " Deep, sir ; deep ! " 
 
 But there is a more serious aspect to this matter. For 
 three centuries this Mary Stuart question has been a vexed 
 one among historians, and the never-ending theme of acri-. 
 monious controversy. What prospect is there of reach- 
 ing any solution if the subject continues to be treated as 
 we find it in the work before us ? So far from settling any 
 question in dispute, or even solving any of the numerous 
 secondary problems underlying the main issue, Mr. Froude, 
 by his violent partisanship, tortured citation, paltering with 
 the sense while tampering with the text of authorities, at- 
 tribution of false motives, and a scandalous wealth of 
 abusive epithets, greatly grieves the most judicious of 
 those who condemn Mary Stuart, inspires with renewed 
 confidence those who believe that she was a woman more 
 sinned against than sinning, and begets the conviction that 
 the cause must be bad indeed which needs such handling. 
 
 The murder of Black, a Catholic priest, in the city of 
 Edinburgh on the same night that Riccio was killed, is but 
 
110 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 seldom alluded to by historians, probably for the reason 
 that it indicated the participation of the zealots of the Kirk 
 in the conspiracy, and was not, moreover, necessarily con- 
 nected with the history of Mary Stuart. But Mr. Froude, 
 unfortunately for himself, has seized on the incident, and 
 with his peculiar handling made a page or two quite good 
 enough for a novel. What matter ? Why should not 
 readers have an interesting narrative ? The truth of the 
 affair is buried in a musty old folio and an almost unknown 
 state paper. 
 
 The substance of our historian's story is that Black was 
 killed because he was a bad, immoral man, and had vio- 
 lated some domestic sanctuary, and he really tells his story 
 very well. 
 
 The truth is that Black — well known for his polemic 
 zeal — during the summer preceding the murder of Riccio 
 had distinguished himself in open debate with Willock the 
 Reformer. The debate was for years afterward remem- 
 bered in Edinburgh as having lasted two long hot summer 
 days in the public square. Shortly after, Black was way- 
 laid and assaulted in the streets of Edinburgh by four men, 
 who were arrested and tried for the offense. Mr. Froude 
 has seen the record in Pitcairn's " Criminal Trials." These 
 same four men were all engaged in the murder of Riccio, 
 and outlawed for it. Not yet recovered from his wounds 
 received months before. Black was slain in his bed on 
 the night Riccio was killed. Now, with those facts before 
 him, Mr. Froude tells us, — 
 
 " A citizen encountered him a little before Christmas in some 
 room or passage where he should not have been. He received 
 ' two or three blows with a cudgel and one with a dagger,' and 
 had been since unable to leave his bed. While Edinburgh was 
 shuddering over the scene in the palace, a brother or husband 
 who had matter against the chaplain — the same, perhaps, who 
 had stabbed him — finished his work, and murdered the wounded 
 wretch where he lay." 
 
MURDER OF BLACK. 
 
 Ill 
 
 " Some room or passage where he should not have been," 
 and " a brother or husband who had matter against the 
 chaplain," are inventions of Mr. Froude, who has read the 
 dispatch of Bedford to Cecil (March 18. State Paper 
 Office, vol. xii. p. 545), in which he says : — 
 
 " David, as I wrote to you in my last letter, is slayne, and at 
 the same tyme was left slayne by like order one Friar Black, a 
 ranke Papist." 
 
 So that the murderers of Riccio, as would appear from 
 the official information of one of their friends deep in their 
 secrets, were also the murderers of Black, and not, 
 haps," " a brother or husband." 
 
 But why is this " Black " incident introduced by the Eng- 
 lish historian ? The man's name was never mentioned be- 
 fore, and he has no necessary connection with the history 
 of matters at the court of Scotland. We can see no reason 
 but a sort of cuttle-fish motive of discoloring all that sur- 
 rounds it. 
 
 After portraying Black as a man of immoral life banished 
 to England, our historian adds : " But it is to be supposed 
 that he had merit of some kind, for Mary Stuart took him 
 into flwor and appointed him t)ne of the court preachers." 
 (viii. 2G4.) Clever ! 
 
 The fact that the death of Black was rejoiced over as the 
 removal of a troublesome theological opponent, is made 
 certain by the correspondence of that day, both in Scotland 
 and England. Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, advises 
 Bullinger (Reformed Church of Zurich) in terms at once 
 shocking and puerile : " Fraterculus quidam, nomine Black 
 (niger Visularius), Papistarum antesignanus, eodem tem- 
 pore in Aula occiditur : Sic niger hie nebulo, nigra quoque ; 
 morte peremptus, invitus nigrum subito descendit in Or- 
 cum."^ 
 
 1 Burnet, Tlisiory of the Reformation^ Lond. ed. vol. iii. part 2, p. 406. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 JEDBURGH AND CRAIGMILLAR. 
 
 " The historian, we are told, must not leave his readers to themselves. 
 He must not only lay the facts before them : he must tell them what he 
 himself thinks about those facts. In my opinion, that is 2»'ecisely what he 
 ought not to do.^^ — James Anthojsy Fboude, in Short Studies on Great 
 Subjects, p. 34. 
 
 Murray, meanwhile, had become omnipotent, but our 
 historian fails to see it. As the period of Mary's confine- 
 ment approached, Murray and the Earl of Mar took ex- 
 clusive command of the castle ; and neither Huntly, Both- 
 'well, nor Athol were permitted to sleep within its walls. 
 Mary was still in deep mental suffering from the exposure 
 made of Darnley's treachery and falsehood. " So many 
 great sighs she would give," says Melville, " that it was a pity 
 to hear her.'* Sick at heart, she seriously designed leaving 
 Scotland for France, and intended to name a regency of 
 five nobles to govern her kingdom during her absence. 
 
 As long as Buchanan was believed, Mary's ride from 
 Jedburgh was the strong point relied on to show her guilty 
 complicity with Bothwell during Darnley's life. Referring 
 to the fact that Bothwell was lying wounded at the Hermi- 
 tage, the accusation ran thus in Buchanan's " Detection," and 
 in the Book of Articles preferred by Murray against his 
 sister : — 
 
 " When news hereof was brought to Borthwick to the Queen, 
 she flingeth away in haste like a mad woman, by great journeys 
 in post, in the sharp time of winter, first to Melrose and then 
 to Jedburgh. There, though she heard sure news of his life, yet 
 her affection, impatient of delay, could not temper itself, but 
 needs she must bewray her outrageous lust ; and in an inconven- 
 
JEDBURGH. 
 
 113 
 
 ient time of the year, despising all discommodities of the way 
 and weather, and all dangers of tliieves, she betook herself head- 
 long to her journey, with such a company as no man of any hon- 
 est degree would have adventured his life and his goods among 
 them." 
 
 This makes a journey of sixty miles. Robertson repeats 
 the story, remarking that " she flew thither with an impa- 
 tience which marks the anxiety of a lover." Although 
 this absurd fable, so far as it reflects on the Queen, is 
 long since exploded, and nothing of it is left but a short 
 ride for a praiseworthy motive, Mr. Froude yet manages to 
 give a version of it which, if less gross in terms than that 
 of Buchanan, is to the full as malicious in spirit. Mr. Bur- 
 ton, with more prudence, wisely abstains from any struggle 
 with the facts of the case and takes refuge in insinuation. 
 Mr. Froude states (viii. 349) that the Queen of Scots in 
 September — 
 
 " Proposed to go in person to Jedburgh, and hear the com- 
 plaints of Elizabeth's wardens. The Earl of Bothwell had taken 
 command of the North Marches ; he had gone down to prepare 
 the way for the Queen's appearance, and on her arrival she was 
 greeted with the news that he had been shot through the thigh 
 in a scuffle, and was lying wounded in Hermitage Castle. The 
 earl had been her companion throughout the summer ; her rela- 
 tions with him at this time — whether innocent or not — were of 
 the closest intimacy ; and she had taken into her household a 
 certain Lady Reres, who had once been his mistress. 
 
 " She heard of his wound with the most alarmed anxiety : on 
 every ground she could ill afford to lose him ; and careless at all 
 times of bodily fatigue or danger, she rode on the 15th of Octo- 
 ber twenty-five miles over the moors to see him. The earl's state 
 proved to be more painful than dangerous, and after remaining 
 two hours at his bedside, she returned the same day to Jed- 
 burgh." 
 
 We propose to dissect this singular passage, that our 
 readers may see the writer's process, and with what manner 
 of materials he constructs history. 
 8 
 
114 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 It is not true that in September Mary proposed as 
 here stated.^ Her journey to Jedburgh for the purpose of 
 holding an assize was resolved upon by the advice of her 
 ministers at Alloa, as far back as the 28th of July, as 
 shown by the record of the Privy Council. Not true that 
 Both well " had gone down to prepare the way," etc. Not 
 true that he " had taken command," etc. Bothwell had for 
 many years been Warden of the Marches, having been ap- 
 pointed by Mary's mother, and " had gone down " — not to 
 Jedburgh, but into Liddesdale — to arrest certain daring 
 freebooters. Not true, finally, that " on her arrival she 
 was greeted," etc. Mary arrived at Jedburgh October 7, 
 and first heard on the day following of Bothwell's being 
 wounded. Our historian carefully gives no date here, 
 neither stating when Bothwell was wounded nor when the 
 Queen arrived ; but he tells us that she heard of his wound, 
 and rode on the 15th October to see him. This leaves the 
 inference that as soon as she heard of Bothv^elVs wound she 
 started The facts are, that although the Queen knew of 
 the wounding on the 8th, she remained at Jedburgh with 
 her council, presiding and attending to the business of the 
 assize until it adjourned on the 15th of October, and even 
 then did not leave Jedburgh until the following day. From 
 Mr. Fronde's account, she would appear to have taken the 
 ride without any escort. But Buchanan, whose work, we 
 are assured, " is without a serious error," states that she 
 went " with such a company as no man of any honest de- 
 
 1 " After the strange appearance of Darnley in September at the Council . 
 of Edinburgh," Mr. Froude has it. A characteristicall}'- clever stroke to 
 connect the supposed failing affection for Darnley with the attributed "in- 
 timacy" with Bothwell. Here again, as usual, Mr. Froude is in open hos- 
 tility with a mass of reliable testimony. We have Bedford's letter to Cecil 
 as far back as August 3, announcing the Queen's notice " to keep a justice- 
 court at Jedworth, the Queen's proclamation from her h-ino;-in chamber, 
 ordering an assize at Jedburgh for August 13, and the fact that owing to 
 representations that the assize would interfere with the h^vest, it Avas 
 postponed, and proclamation issued, September 24:, for holding it on the 
 8th of October." 
 
BOTHWELL AND ELLIOT. 
 
 115 
 
 gree would have ventured his life and his goods among 
 them ; " in other words, that she went escorted by thieves 
 and murderers. Now, in thus describing Mary's escort, 
 does Buchanan tell the truth, or does he lie ? 
 
 A serious dilemma for our writer, who finds his safety in 
 " sinking " the escort, which consisted of the " stainless " 
 Murray, Lethington, and several members of her Council. 
 "Were these persons the approvers and accomplices of such 
 a journey as he would have his readers believe it to have 
 been ? In their presence the Queen thanked Bothwell for 
 his good service, and expressed sympathy for his dangerous 
 condition. That the Queen did not remain that night at 
 the Armitage (arsenal of Liddesdale, of which Hermitage 
 is a corruption) is a source of positive unhappiness to 
 Messrs. Froude, Buchanan, and Mignet. The first consoles 
 himself in all his succeeding statements, and Buchanan 
 finds satisfaction in saying that she hurried back in order 
 to make preparations for Bothwell's removal there. Just 
 here let us relieve the tedium of our dry work by a pleasant 
 story which exemplifies how some histories are written. 
 On the day following Mary's return to Jedburgh, a quantity 
 of writs, summons, and other documents were dispatched 
 to Bothwell in his official capacity as Lieutenant of the 
 Marches, and the Treasurer's accounts of the day certify 
 the payment of six shillings for sending " ane boy " passing 
 from Jedburgh, October 17, with " ane mass of writings 
 of our sovereign to the Earl of Bothwell." Chalmers, in 
 recording this, adds ironically, " love-letters, of course." 
 Whereupon M. Mignet, unfamiliar with " sarcastical " Eng- 
 lish, takes it for a serious statement, and tells his readers 
 that Mary hurried back to Jedburgh in order that she 
 might write a long letter that night ! 
 
 Bothwell was wounded " in a scuffle." A scuffle may be 
 a drunken brawl. But his " scuffle " was this. lie was 
 seeking officially ^ to arrest John Elliot of Park, a desper- 
 1 " To compel certen unbiydlit insolent thevis to shaw their obedience to 
 
116 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 ate outlaw and the leader of a formidable band of insur- 
 gents.^ Coming up with him on the 7th October, Elliott 
 fled, and Bothwell, without counting the risk or waiting for 
 his escort, pursued him alone. Overtaking him, a desperate 
 hand-to-hand fight ensued,^ in which he killed Elliott, but 
 was himself covered with wounds and left for dead upon 
 the moor. His attendants coming up took him to the ar- 
 senal. This fierce death-struggle is Mr. Froude's "scuf- 
 fle." 3 
 
 " The Earl had been her companion throughout the sum- 
 mer." How, when, and where, we are not told, for Both- 
 well's name does not once appear in his history from page 
 272 (viii.), where he rallies to the Queen's standard with 
 hundreds of the Scottish nobility, to page 303, where we 
 have no facts, but insinuating suggestion and evil suppo- 
 sition. 
 
 We now propose to follow separately the Queen and 
 Bothwell " throughout the summer," and show how some 
 histories are written. The Queen was within three months 
 
 hir; but they according to their unrewlie custume dispj'sit him and his 
 commissioun, in sik sort as they invadit him fearcelie and hurt him in dy- 
 verse pairties of his bodie and held, that hardlie he escapit with saiftie of 
 his lyfe, and this act was done be the hand is of JohneEllot of the Park, 
 whome the said Erie slew at the conflict." — Contemporary MS., published 
 by the Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1835. 
 
 1 One of the results of the apologetic controversy raised by Mr. Froude 
 touching a letter of Randolph to Cecil of October 5, 1565, from Scotland 
 (but which, having no existence, turned out to be a letter from Bedford to 
 Cecil, written in England), is the interesting revelation that these "un- 
 brydlit insolent thevis " — the Elliotts (Elwoods) — were a band of Scotch 
 outlaws in Queen Elizabeth's pay. From courtly and highborn traitors in 
 Holyrood down to robbers on the highway, any allies appear to have been 
 for the English Queen good enough to attain her ends against Mary Stuart. 
 
 2 Sir "Walter Scott's admirable picture of the death-struggle between 
 Roderick Dhu and Fitz James is in Scotland generally understood to have 
 been taken from a description of this fight. 
 
 3 In a document put forth by Henry VIII. to palliate the robbery and 
 desecration of the shrine of Canterbury, the ghastly murder of the vener- 
 able Thomas a Becket by a band of mailed assassins, is described as a 
 " scuffle." — i^rOMcZe, iii. 278. 
 
SUMMER OF 15G6. 
 
 IIT 
 
 of her confinement when Riccio was murdered in her 
 presence (March 9). After her escape from the mur- 
 derers, she returned to Edinburgh, and, entering her sick 
 room in the castle, she never left it until the following July. 
 Iler child was born on the 19th June. But it is absolutely 
 necessary for the success of Mr. Froude's theory that 
 guilty love should exist between her and Bothwell previous 
 to the incidents of Jedburgh and Craigmillar, which, other- 
 wise, would not be available for desired manipulation ; and 
 therefore, setting at defiance psychology, physiology, de- 
 cency, and the historic record, he selects this period. We 
 will presently speak of Mary's lately-discovered last will 
 and testament, made just before the birth of her child, 
 which event, it was feared, she might not survive. ^ Both- 
 well, it must be borne in mind, was, with the entire appro- 
 bation of the Queen, married to Lady Jane Gordon, a sis- 
 ter of the Earl of Huntly, on the previous 16th February, 
 and there is no evidence that Mary ever saw him from the 
 day she returned to Edinburgh in March to the angry inter- 
 view between him and Murray in her presence in August. 
 It is true that (viii. 302) Mr. Froude seeks to create the 
 impression that Bothwell was at the castle with the Queen 
 on the 24th of June, by a garbled citation from a letter of 
 Killigrew to Cecil : " Bothwell's credit with the Queen was 
 more than all the rest together." Here is what Killigrew 
 really wrote : — 
 
 "The Earls of Argyll, Moray, Mar, and Cra,wford, presently in 
 court be now linked together ; and Huntly and Bothwell with 
 their friends on the other side. The Earl of Bothwell and Mr. 
 Maxwell be both upon the borders of Scotland ; but the truth is, 
 the Earl of Bothwell would not gladly be in danger of the four 
 above-named, which all lie in the castle ; and it is thought and 
 said that Bothwell's credit with the Queen is more than all the 
 rest together," etc. 
 
 1 Mr. Burton gives a very remarkable reason for Mary's alleged passion 
 for Bothwell : " Mary was evidently one of those to whom at that time a 
 great affair of the heart was a necessity of life " ! 
 
118 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 From this it would appear that Argyll, Murray, Mar, and 
 Crawford, rather than Bothwell, were the Queen's com- 
 panions, for they " did lie in the castle," while he was " on 
 the borders," and that Bothwell's " credit with the Queen " 
 was rather political than personal, and after all a mere oji- 
 dit — people " thought and said." And why did people so 
 think and say ? In the admirable words of a living Scotch 
 author,^ — 
 
 " Bothwell was the only one of the great nobles of Scotland 
 who, from first to last, had remained faithful both to her mother 
 and herself j .... and whatever may have been his follies or 
 his crimes, no man could say that James Hepburn was either a 
 hypocrite or a traitor. Though stanch to the religion (Protes- 
 tant) which he professed, he never made it a cloak for his ambi- 
 tion ; though driven into exile and reduced to extreme poverty 
 by the malice of his enemies, he never, so far as we know, ac- 
 cepted of a foreign bribe. In an age when political fidelity was 
 the rarest of virtues, we need not be surprised that his sovereign 
 at this time trusted and rewarded him." 
 
 A laborious effort is made to transfer the origin of the 
 enmity of Murray and his friends to Bothwell to a much 
 later period and to far different causes. But their ill-will 
 to him was that of traitors to a faithful subject. Although 
 perfectly at home in the " Rolls House," and thoroughly 
 familiar with the diplomatic correspondence of the period, 
 Mr. Froude does not appear to have seen the letter of 
 Bedford to Cecil, written as far back as August 2 : — 
 
 " I have heard that there is a device working for the Earl of 
 Bothwell, the particulars whereof I might have heard, but be- 
 cause such dealings like me not, I desire to hear no further 
 thereof. Bothwell lias grown of late so hated, that he cannot long 
 continue" 
 
 " Of late " takes us back weeks and months, and " de- 
 vice " and " such dealings " simply mean assassination or 
 murder. 
 
 1 Mary Queen of Scots and her Accusers, by John Hosack. 
 
THE ALLOA LETTER. 
 
 119 
 
 The Castle of Alloa story (viii 304) forms part of the 
 foundation for an assertion of companionship throughout 
 the summer. This Alloa story is a wretched fable of 
 Buchanan's invention. The historian Burton, to whom 
 our English historian must always bow, passes it over in 
 contemptuous silence ; and in his history. Bishop Keith 
 says that " the malignancy of the narrative is obvious," 
 and that " the reader need hardly be reminded that all 
 this is gratuitous fiction, having no foundation in fact." 
 Nevertheless, for a partisan writer, this rubbish is good 
 historic material. A letter of Mary Stuart written at Alloa, 
 and but lately discovered in the charter-chest of the Laird 
 of Abercairnie, shows that she passed at least a portion of 
 her time there in pleading the cause of the widow and the 
 orphan. The letter is given in Miss Strickland's admir- 
 able life of Mary Stuart : — 
 
 " To our Traist Friend, Robert Murray of Abercearne : — 
 
 *' Traist Friend, — Forasmeikle as it is heavily moaned and 
 piteously complained by this puir woman, that ye have violently 
 ejected her, with ane company of puir bairnies, forth of her 
 kindly home, ever willing to pay you duty thankfully ; therefore, 
 in respect that if ye be so extreme as to depauperate the puir 
 woman and her bairns, we will desire you to show some favor, 
 and accept them in their steeting (?), as ye have done in times 
 bygone ; the which we doubt not but ye will do for this our re- 
 quest, and as ye shall respect our thanks and pleasure for the 
 same. 
 
 « At Alway (Alloa) the penult of July 1566. 
 
 Marie K" 
 
 A part of the Alloa story was that Mary was " inexora- 
 ble " to her husband ; and Mr. Froude, representing Darn- 
 ley's conduct as arising from his fear of Mary, so mangles 
 Bedford's dispatches to Cecil (viii. 304) as to leave the 
 reader to suppose that Bothwell was the cause of the an- 
 gry scenes between Mary and Darnley, when it was in fact 
 the dispute concerning Lethington's (Maitland) pardon for 
 the Riccio murder, solicited by Murray and Athol, and so 
 
120 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 fiercely remonstrated against by Darnley. All Darnley's 
 vacillation, trepidation, and strange behavior arose from his 
 fear of the revenge that would be visited upon him by the 
 leading Riccio assassins whom he had betrayed to the 
 Queen. He was the cause of Morton's exile, for, as Mr. 
 Froude says, " his complicity was unsuspected until re- 
 vealed by Darnley," and he full well knew what might be 
 expected from the resentment of such men, even if Ruthven 
 had not threatened him with it on the night of the murder. 
 Even that writer cannot help seeing and admitting that 
 " in the restoration to favor of the nobles whom he had in- 
 vited to revenge his own imagined wrongs, and had thus 
 deserted and betrayed, the miserable King read his own 
 doom." Most true : and the doom overtook him at Kirk-a- 
 field. Here, in a moment of forge tfuln ess, the truth is told 
 as to Darnley's " wrongs," which were " imagined," thus 
 contradicting the historian's purient insolence in saying, 
 " whether she had lost in Ritzio a favored lover, or whether," 
 etc., which he again contradicts by another calumny, " The 
 affection of the Queen of Scots for Bothwell is the best 
 evidence of her innocence with Ritzio" (viii. 304), And 
 so passes away our summer of 1566, and no Bothwell ap- 
 pears. He was not at Alloa at all, and in Edinburgh but 
 a day, to protest in audience against the return to Lething- 
 ton of his forfeited lands. Murray, all-powerful, menaced 
 Bothwell in the Queen's presence in language insulting to 
 her, and Bothwell, who, as Killigrew wrote to Cecil, " would 
 not gladly be in danger of Murray and his friends," per- 
 fectly understanding that his life was not safe there, im- 
 mediately left the court. The Lady Reres' story is, like 
 that of Alloa, "pure Buchanan." From the statement 
 made one might suppose that no one but Lady Reres ac- 
 companied Mary to Jedburgh. The probability is that 
 Lady Reres was not there at all. The certainty is that 
 Mary was accompanied by a large retinue of ladies, among 
 whom was Murray's wife ; and Burton says that according 
 
MARY'S POPULARITY. 
 
 121 
 
 to Lord Scrope, who sent the news to Cecil, " she had with 
 her, as official documents show, Murray, Huntley, Athol^ 
 Kothes, and Caithness, with three bishops and the judges 
 and officers of the court." 
 
 Now if, as asserted, Mary Stuart " spent her days upon 
 the sea or at Alloa with her cavalier," if Bothwell had been 
 her companion during the summer, if she rode twenty-five 
 miles over the moor as soon as she heard of Bothwell's 
 wound, such conduct would have inevitably shocked and 
 scandalized all about her, and the result must have been 
 the utter destruction of respect for her person and her au- 
 thority. Unfortunately for our writer, his assertions con- 
 cerning Mary Stuart at this time fall within that very large 
 category of his facts which the historians of that period 
 have totally forgotten to chronicle. Nay, still more unfor- 
 tunately for him, it so happens that the precise condition 
 of public sentiment at this time concerning Mary Stuart 
 has been recorded by an authority not to be gainsayed by 
 our English historian. An incorrect translation and a ma- 
 licious signification are given (viii. 350), to the honest re- 
 flection of the French Ambassador ^ that Bothwell's death 
 would have been no small loss to the Queen, but he fails to 
 see in the very same dispatch this passage : " 1 never saw 
 her majesty so much beloved, esteemed, and honored, nor so 
 great a harmony amongst all her subjects, as at the present 
 is by her wise conduct" Think you the performances de- 
 scribed by our author would have been held to be wise 
 conduct by on-lookers at whose head was the " stainless " 
 Murray ? 
 
 1 Maitland's statement is on the same page quite as roughly handled. 
 He wrote : " The Queen's sickness, so far as I can understand, is caused of 
 thought and displeasure, and, I trow, by what I could wring further of her 
 own declaration, the root of it is the king, for she has done him so great 
 honor without the advice of her friends, and contrary to the advice of her 
 subjects; and he, on the other hand, has recompensed her with such in- 
 gratitude," etc. Mr. Froude's energetic abbreviation of this passage is 
 " ' thought and displeasure,' which, as she herself told Maitland, ' had tljeir 
 root in the king,' had already affected both her health and spirits." - (viii. 
 350.) 
 
122 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 In cheerful tones, the historian says a few characteristic 
 words as to Mary's deadly ilhiess at Jedburgh. The pas- 
 sage is a fit forerunner of the brutality of his subsequent 
 picture of her execution. But, bad as it is, we can yet 
 congratulate him on his failure to follow Buchanan to the 
 end. He does not appear to have sunk so low as to dare 
 mention what Buchanan says as to the cause of the Queen's 
 illness. We have no comment to make on the intimation 
 that the bearing of Mary Stuart on v/hat she and all around 
 her supposed to be her dying bed was " theatrical," nor on 
 the vulgar fling at her piety. 
 
 We now come the great incident at Craigmillar, which is 
 thus related (viii. 354). One morning Murray and Mait- 
 land (let the reader here follow Murray's movements) 
 come to Argyll " still in bed." They want to counsel as to 
 the means of obtaining Morton's pardon for the Kiccio mur- 
 der. Maitland suggests that the best way is to promise 
 the Queen to find means to divorce her from Darnley. 
 Argyll does not see how it can be done. Maitland says, 
 " We shall find the means." These three next see Huntly 
 and Bothwell, who fall in ; and all five go to the Queen, 
 who, Mr. Froude — on his own authority — says, " was 
 craving for release." Thus far, our historian adheres 
 with, for him, wonderful fidelity to the only authority ^ we 
 have for an account of this interview, but, as usual, the 
 moment Mary Stuart appears, the historian and his author- 
 ities are arrayed in open hostility. Maitland suggested 
 to the Queen that if she would consent to pardon Morton 
 and his companions in exile, means might be found to 
 obtain a divorce between her and Darnley. Huntly and 
 Argyll represent Mary as saying " that if a lawful divorce 
 might be obtained without prejudice to her son, she might 
 be induced to consent to it." Of this, the very free trans- 
 
 1 See Protestation of Huntly and Argyll in Keith, vol. iii. p. 290. The 
 Earls of Huntly and Argyll were both Protestant lords, the latter the 
 brother-in-law of Murray. 
 
A DARK SUGGESTION. 
 
 123 
 
 lation is made, " She said generally she would do what 
 they required." Then came the question where the King 
 should reside, which is met by the Queen's suggestion that 
 instead of seeking a divorce, she herself should retire a 
 while to France (she had entertained the same project 
 upon the birth of her child) ; but it was warmly opposed 
 by Maitland in these very significant words : " Do no£ im- 
 agine, madame, that we, the principal nobility of the realm, 
 shall not find the means of ridding your majesty of him 
 without prejudice to your son," etc. — the rest, substan- 
 tially, as in Froude as to Murray's " looking through his 
 fingers and saying nothing." This is at page 356, and the 
 average reader is already supplied at page 349 with the 
 theory Mr. Froude desires to apply to the Jedburgh and 
 Craigmillar incidents. 
 
 " But Mary herself," dramatically exclaims our writer, 
 " how did she receive the dark suggestion ? " " This part 
 of the story rests on the evidence of her own friends " — 
 reader being supposed by Mr. Froude to be ignorant of 
 the fact that every part of the story rests on the same tes- 
 timony,^ that of Huntly and Argyll. She said, he con- 
 tinues, and we ask especial attention to this, — she said 
 she " would do nothing to touch her honor and con- 
 science ; " " they had better leave it alone ; " " meaning to do 
 her good, it might turn to her hurt and displeasure." 
 This is an ingenious piece of work. " They had better 
 leave it alone," is one of Mr. Fronde's inventions, and 
 these broken sentences are so marshaled as to present to 
 the reader the picture of a guilty person who receives a 
 criminal suggestion and replies somewhat incoherently but 
 so as to convey this idea : There, there, we understand 
 each other perfectly ; go and do the deed. Such is the 
 
 1 The latest historian of Scotland, Mr. Burton, who, although an enemy 
 of Mary Stuart, shows in citation some respect for the integrity of histor- 
 ical documents, says, " There''is reason to believe that this conversation is 
 pretty accurately reported." — Vol. iv. p. 334. 
 
124 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 impression inevitably conveyed, and intended by the writer 
 to be conveyed. 
 
 The " Saturday Review " states his offense with mild sar- 
 casm by saying that " Mr. Froude does not seem to have 
 fully grasped the nature of inverted commas." Of course 
 Mary Stuart never spoke the words thus put in her mouth. 
 Here, " according to Argyll and Huntly," is her reply to 
 Maitland, — a reply in perfect harmony with her habitual 
 elevation of sentiment and dignity of bearing : — 
 
 " / will that you do nothing through luhich any spot may he 
 laid on my honor or conscience ; and, therefore, I pray you 
 rather let the matter he in the state that it is, abiding till God 
 of his goodness put remedy thereto." 
 
 Judge ye ! 
 
 The historian then follows up his remarkable citation 
 with a pregnant " may be," two " perhaps," both prolific, 
 and a line or two of poetry, all of which are supposed to 
 convict Mary Stuart of asking the gentlemen in her pres- 
 ence to oblige her by murdering Darnley. To confirm 
 his accusation, he says, " The secret was ill kept, and 
 reached the ears of the Spanish Ambassador," and cites a 
 passage from De Silva's letter, which he abstains from 
 translating. The prudence is not ill-timed, for his citation, 
 so far from confirming, flatly contradicts his statement. 
 We translate it : ^ — 
 
 " I have heard that some persons, seeing the antipathy be- 
 tween the King and Queen, had offered to the Queen to do some- 
 thing against her husband, and that she had not consented to it. 
 Although I had this information from a good source, it seemed 
 to me to be a matter which was not credible that any such over- 
 ture should be made to the Queen." 
 
 The historian is mistaken in assuming that this De Silva 
 letter of January 18 refers to the Craigmillar interview. 
 It is utterly inconsistent with all we know of De Silva's 
 habit of pi'ompt report to his sovereign, that he should wait 
 
 1 Original Spanish (viii. 35G, note). 
 
THE DEAF CONSPIRATOR. 125 
 
 until January 18 to report an occurrence of the previous 
 November. Ilis information from Scotland was always 
 early, for as we shall presently see, he heard of the forged 
 casket letters almost as soon as Elizabeth, and this advice 
 of January 18 refers, doubtless, not to the Craigmillar ac- 
 cident, but to the message sent about the 10th of Jaiuiary 
 to Morton at Whittingham by Maitland and Bothwell as 
 to the failure to obtain a warrant for Darnley's arrest. 
 But here is something better. Mr. Froude exposes Mary 
 Stuart's crime of entertaininsj a " dark suofo^estion " to mur- 
 der Darnley. Very good. But whatever " dark sugges- 
 tion " there was in the case came from Murray,^ and was 
 made to Mary Stuart in his name — Maitland speaking 
 for him ^ — and in his presence. Must we believe that 
 this saintly man coolly proposed, approvingly listened to, 
 and silently acquiesced in the horrible plot ? The histo- 
 rian is seriously embarrassed here, but relying, as usual, 
 on the imbecility of his reader, explains Murray's inno- 
 cence by saying, — it is almost incredible, but he has written 
 it down (viii. 355) : " The words were scarcely ambiguous, 
 yet Murray said nothing. Such subjects are not usually 
 discussed in too loud a tone, and he may not have heard 
 THEM DISTINCTLY." The rooms at Craigmillar were small, 
 and Mr. Froude, in his last volume, describes Mary Stu- 
 art's voice on the scaffold of Fotlieringay, after twenty-one 
 years of suffering and sleekness, as one of " powerful, deep- 
 chested tones." And yet Murray did not hear her ! 
 
 Our historian here plays for a high stake. His object is 
 to impress upon the reader the idea that this conversation 
 
 1 "His ambition," says Robertson, "was immoderate. His treatment 
 of the Queen, to whose bounty he was so much indebted, was unbrotherly 
 and ungrateful. The dependence upon Elizabeth under which he brought 
 Scotland was disgraceful to the nation. He deceived and betrayed Norfolk 
 with a baseness unworthy of a man of honor." 
 
 2 " And albeit that my Lord of Murray here present be little less scru- 
 pulous for a Protestant than j^our grace is for a Papist, I am assured he 
 will look through his fingers thereto, and will behold our doings, saying 
 nothing to the same." 
 
126 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 constituted the so-called Craigmillar bond for the murder 
 of Darnley. The Queen must be implicated in the plot to 
 which, from this moment, he assumes she is party, even at 
 the risk of compromising Murray. Hence the ingenious 
 " he may not have heard distinctly.'' That Murray was per- 
 fectly well acquainted with the ulterior designs of the men 
 with whom he went to the Queen, there can be no doubt ; 
 but that any " dark suggestion," as it is melo-dramatically 
 expressed, was made in the Queen's presence is by himself 
 most emphatically denied. It is to us a matter of no mo- 
 ment what he denies or what he affirms, but his statement 
 effectually crushes out Mr. Fronde's " dark suggestion." 
 Upon his oath Murray declares : — 
 
 " In case any man will say and affirm that ever I was present 
 when any purposes was holden at Craigmillar in my audience, 
 tending to any unlawful or dishonorable end, I avow that they 
 speak wickedly and untruly, which I will maintain against them 
 as becomes an honest man to the end of my life." 
 
 Maitland's answer to the Queen is, of course, omitted by 
 our author. It was, " Madame, let us guide the business 
 among us, and your grace shall see nothing but good, 
 and approved by Parliament" They certainly did not ex- 
 pect murder to be approved by Parliament. Mr. Froude 
 does not tell his readers of this, because it is fatal to his 
 " ill-kept " secret and his " dark suggestion." What was 
 really meant was impeachment, to which Darnley was lia- 
 ble for dismissing, by usurped authority, the three Estates 
 of Scotland in Parliament. 
 
 The schemes attributed to Mary by her traducers for the 
 destruction of Darnley are not half so remarkable for their 
 wickedness as for their clumsiness and stupidity. If Mary 
 Stuart desired at this or at any time to be rid of Darnley, 
 he could have been legally convicted and sent to the scaf- 
 fold on half-a-dozen charges, not to mention the crime of 
 heading the conspiracy to murder Riccio in the Queen's 
 presence. This fact was fully confirmed by the " Instruc- 
 
MARY*S LAST WILL. 
 
 127 
 
 tions of the Scottish Nobles and Prelates," September 12, 
 1858 (Goodal, vol. ii. p. 359) : — 
 
 " They (the Lords) oficred ' to git him convict of treason be- 
 cause he consented to hir Grace's retention in ward,' quhilk alto- 
 gedder hir Grace refusit, as is manifestlie knawin, so that it may 
 be clearly considered hir Grace, having the commoditie to find 
 the means to be separate and yet would not consent thereto, that 
 hir Grace wold never have conscntit to his murthour, having sic 
 other likelie means to have been quit of him be the Lords' own 
 device." 
 
 Mr. Froude presents this reflection (viii. 349) : — 
 
 " Had Darnley been stabbed in a scuffle or helped to death by 
 a dose of arsenic in his bed, the fair fame of the Queen of Scots 
 would have suffered little." 
 
 Very sensibly put. And if " the keenest-witted woman 
 living," as she is described, had really been the instigator 
 of the crime, is it to be supposed she selected the means 
 of murder, of all others best calculated to " challenge the 
 attention of the civilized world " with the thunder-clap and 
 lightning-flash of its perpetration ? 
 
 A word or a nod from her would have been sufficient to 
 have disposed of Darnley quietly and effectually. But she 
 clung to him with all the strength of her much-abused love, 
 and a late discovery ^ has brought to light a touching proof 
 of her attachment to him during this very summer of 1566, 
 the period of those asserted peculiar " relations " with 
 Both well. Although made in 1854, this fresh and impor- 
 tant testimony appears not yet to have been heard of by Mr. 
 
 1 Mr. Hosack gives the fac-simile of a page of Mary's will made 
 just before the birth of her child in June, 1566. It was discovered in 
 the Register House, Edinburgh. She bequeaths to Darnley her choicest 
 jewels — far more of them than to an}"- one else. There are as many as 
 twenty-six valuable bequests to her husband of watches, diamonds, rubies, 
 pearls, turquoises, a " St. Michael," containing fourteen diamonds, a chain 
 of gold of two hundred links with two diamonds to each link, and lastly, 
 a diamond ring enameled in red, as to which the Queen. writes: " It was 
 with this I was married; I leave it to the King who gave it to me." 
 
128 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 « 
 
 Froude. What De Silva refers to in his letter is the pro- 
 posed impeachment, and he speaks still more plainly in an- 
 other dispatch not cited by the English writer : " Many 
 had sought to engage her in a conspiracy against her hus- 
 band, but she gave a negative to every point." And yet 
 our historian has the hardihood to represent as an entire 
 success this utter failure of Murray and his colleagues to 
 draw the Queen into a plot against Darnley. If a success, 
 why was not Morton forthwith pardoned, for that was the 
 immediate advantage the nobles were to gain from the 
 Queen ? Failing with her, the conspirators resolved on 
 the murder of Darnley, and a bond was drawn up to get 
 rid of the " young fool and proud tyrant." It was pre- 
 pared by Sir James Balfour, an able lawyer and thorough- 
 paced villain. Murray, — 
 
 *' The head of many a felon plot, 
 But never once the arm ! " i — 
 
 declares he did not sign it. Possibly he did not, his col- 
 leagues being satisfied with his promise that he " would 
 look through his fingers and say nothing." 
 
 We have thus dissected Mr. Froude's singular presenta- 
 tion of the facts connected with Mary's presence at Alloa, 
 Jedburgh, and Craigmillar, partly to expose his system of 
 writing history, and partly to draw attention to the dilemma 
 in which he finds himself Were he really a historian, he 
 would recount the facts attending Mary Stuart's career, 
 leaving readers to draw their own conclusions. And in- 
 deed, as a general proposition, he appears to have some 
 dim perception that such a course would be the true one. 
 At page 485, vol. iv., he says : " To draw conclusions is the 
 business of the reader ; it has been mine to search for the 
 facts." Again, at page 92, vol. i. : " It is not for the histo- 
 rian to balance advantages. His duty is with facts." But 
 he starts out with the assumption of Mary Stuart's guilt, 
 and hastens to announce it while describing her as an in- 
 1 Aytoun. 
 
historian's duty. 
 
 129 
 
 fant in lier cradle,^ entirely forgetting his very sensible re- 
 flection (ii. 451), " We cannot say what is probable or what 
 is improbable, except that the guilt of every person is im- 
 probable antecedent to evidence ; " making of her a fiend 
 incarnate in the teeth of his own declared doctrine (i. 172), 
 that " some natural explanation can usually be given of the 
 actions of human beings in this world without supposing 
 them to have been possessed by extraordinary wickedness ; " 
 setting at defiance his principle that a given historical sub- 
 ject " is one on which rhetoric and rumor are alike un- 
 profitable " (ii. 448) ; and elaborating such a monstrous 
 portraiture of the Queen of Scots as can be " credible " 
 (we borrow the writer's words) " only to those who form 
 opinions by their wills, and believe or disbelieve as they 
 choose." A reader of good memory who has just com- 
 pleted the perusal of this historian's account of Mary 
 Stuart must involuntarily recall his prophetic words (iv. 
 496) : " We all know how such fabrics are built together, 
 commenced by levity or malice, carried on, repeated, mag- 
 nified, till calumny has made a cloud appear like a moun- 
 tain." 
 
 Here is the dilemma. Mary Stuart's guilt cannot possi- 
 bly be proven unless we accept the forged casket-letters as 
 genuine. If they are admitted, we have no choice but to 
 look upon the Queen of Scots as a most wicked and de- 
 praved woman. Now, as we will show in the proper place, 
 our historian not only utterly breaks down in attempting to 
 establish the casket-letters, but makes a deplorably feeble 
 failure in meeting the question at all. Hence, for him, the 
 absolute necessity of proof aliunde. But we have seen of 
 what this proof is made. His great effort is to lead cap- 
 tive the reader's judgment, and impress him with the be- 
 lief of Mary's guilt before the casket-letters are reached. 
 If he can but obtain even a hesitating faith in them, he is 
 safe, the fair fame of this woman is blasted, and people 
 
 1 Ante, p. 22. 
 
 9 
 
130 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 may, if their taste that way incline, do as he does, and in 
 joyous phrase execrate her memory and call her foul 
 names. 
 
 We would not, though, have our readers suppose Mr. 
 Froude incapable of pity. By no means. He relates how 
 Anne Boleyn was justly and legally convicted of fornica- 
 tion, adultery, and incest, and exclaims : " Let us feel our 
 very utmost commiseration for this unhappy woman : if she 
 was guilty, it is the more reason that we should pity her." 
 (ii. 458.) Amen ! say we, with all our heart. And to this 
 amen we find in all Mr. Froude's pages the response, Yes, 
 pity for her — for any one but Mary Stuart. Hence, we 
 witness efforts, by means and appliances heretofore un- 
 known to serious writers of history, to show Mary Stuart's 
 guilt as manifested in her determination to be divorced 
 from Darnley, the threat to take his life, and in the plot to 
 murder him. We have shown that the threat to take Darn- 
 ley's life is simply an invention of Mr. Froude ; ^ that the 
 determined divorce ^ is also an invention ; and that the plot 
 was — so far as Mary is concerned — what we have just 
 exposed. 
 
 The occasion of the baptism of the infant prince (17th 
 December) was seized to press the petition for the pardon 
 of Morton and his associates. Murray, Athol, and Both- 
 well, all joined in solicitation, but the most powerful in- 
 fluence came from Queen Elizabeth and her envoy Bed- 
 ford.^ From the pardon were excepted George Douglas, 
 who had stabbed Riccio over the Queen's shoulder, and 
 Ker of Faudonside, who held a pistol to her breast. Why 
 Darnley should dread the return of Morton and his friends 
 is very plain. They looked upon him as equally guilty 
 with themselves in the Riccio murder, and to this he had 
 added the (in their eyes) infamy of betraying them and 
 
 1 Ante, p. 99. 2 Ante,i^. 109. 
 
 8 See Elizabeth to Throckmorton (Keith, 428), and Bedford to Cecil, 
 January 9, 1566. 
 
DARNLEY AND THE LORDS. 
 
 131 
 
 perpetuating their exile. The historian may well record 
 that " it could only have been with terror .... that he 
 should meet Morton." Quite reason enough for sudden 
 departure from Stirling. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 DARNLEY. 
 
 " If you read any man partially bitter against others, as differing from 
 him in opinion, .... take heed how you believe any more than the 
 historical evidence, distinct from his word, compelleth you to believe." 
 
 Richard Baxter. 
 
 There are whole pages of the history in question in 
 which bhmder and invention strive for the mastery, and 
 alternately obtain it in every line.^ Thus : " The poor boy 
 might have yet been saved, etc. He muttered only some 
 feeble apology, however, and fled from the court ' very 
 grieved.' He could not bear, some one wrote, ' that the 
 Queen should use familiarity with man or woman, especially 
 the lords of Argyll and Murray, which kept most company 
 with her.' " " Some one wrote " — it matters not who, 
 " some one's " text being here no more respected than any 
 one's text. What " some one " really wrote was, " The king 
 departed very grieved." For " departed " our historian here 
 substitute " fled from." The word " ladies " is altered to 
 " lords" one of the ladies of the original ^ being dropped by 
 
 1 The paragraph of twenty-one lines beginning at " The next morning the 
 council met " (viii. 307), contains numerous serious errors, the least of which 
 is that Mr. Froude names Bothwell as one of the lords who were " all Catlio 
 lies." Bothwell! than whom there was not in all Scotland a more uncom- 
 promising Protestant. At the baptism of the prince, he refused to be pres 
 ent at that " popish ceremony." Mr. Froude says (viii. 358), "Three of 
 the Scottish noblemen were present at the ceremony. The rest stood outside 
 the door." Reader necessarily supposes " the rest " to signify a large crowd. 
 "The rest" \yere Bothwell, Murray, and Huntly, who, as the Scotch Puri- 
 tan Diurnal of Occurrents records, " came not within the said chapel, be- 
 cause it was done against the points of their rehgion." 
 
 2 Which reads, " He cannot beare that the queeue should use familiaritie 
 either with men or women, and especially the ladies of Arguille, Moraj'', 
 and Marre, who kepe most company with her." 
 
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 133 
 
 him in the process. These hidies were the ladies of Ar- 
 gyll, Murray, and Mar, respectively the sister, the wife, and 
 the aunt of Murray ! It does not suit the author's purpose 
 that the reader should see that these ladies, and not Lady 
 Reres, were the " constant companions " of the Queen dur- 
 ing the summer, and that the Murray — not the Bothwell 
 — interest was in the ascendant at court. Mr. Froude is 
 curiously infelicitous in his translations from the French 
 and Spanish. He quotes Du Croc, " In a sort of despera- 
 tion," and " he [Darnley] had no hope in Scotland, and he 
 feared for his life." (viii. 307.) There is not a syl- 
 lable OF THIS IN Du Croc, who wrote, " Je ne vois que 
 deux choses qui le desesph ent." These two things, he goes on 
 to explain, are : First, The reconciliation between the lords 
 and the Queen rendering him jealous of their influence with 
 her. Second, That Elizabeth's minister, coming to the bap- 
 tism of the young prince, was instructed not to recognize 
 Darnley as king. " 11 prend une peur de recevoir une honte*' 
 adds Du Croc. That is to say, he feared this public slight, 
 and therefore was not present at the baptism. And of this 
 Mr. Froude makes not only the abuse of the false trans- 
 lation, " Be feared for his life,'' but conceals the true cause 
 of Darnley's absence from the baptismal ceremonies, and 
 tells his too confiding readers, — 
 
 " It boded ill for the supposed reconciliation that the prince's 
 father, though in the castle at the time, remained in his own 
 room, either still brooding over his wrongs and afraid that some 
 insult should be passed upon him, or else forbidden by the Queen 
 to appear." i (viii. 358.) 
 
 " Either " — " or else " — Mr. Froude does not even pre- 
 tend to know which. Reader may take his choice. Mean- 
 time, historian, aware of the true cause, knows positively it 
 was neither. Admire, as you pass, " his wrongs." Darn- 
 
 1 Cecil appears to have been of a different opinion, and writes to the Eng- 
 lish ambassador at Paris, September 1, 1565 : " The young King is so in- 
 solent, as his father is weary of his government and is departed from the 
 court." 
 
134 
 
 MAEY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 ley's wrongs ! Lennox " neglected " is excellent and mirth- 
 compelling. If Miiry had been an Elizabeth, this miser- 
 able old sinner Lennox would long before have been sent 
 to the block for his repeated treasons. He was an irre- 
 claimable traitor, and his son's mad and perverse conduct 
 was mainly due to his evil counsel. The only punishment 
 inflicted upon him was banishment from Mary's presence. 
 Thus was he neglected. Decidedly Mary was wrong. He 
 should have been attended to. Chalmers has correctly de- 
 scribed Mary's reign as a reign of plots and pardons. And 
 so it was. The timely chopping off of a few traitors' heads 
 would have saved to her her crown and her life.^ Darnley 
 is now the " poor boy." In these pages, every one, from 
 Murray down^ to " blasphemous Balfour," is good, virtuous, 
 or pious, just in proportion as they are useful to him against 
 Mary Stuart ; and Darnley begins from this moment to be 
 more and more interesting, up to the scene where historical 
 romance places him " lying dead in the garden under the 
 stars," in the odor of sanctity, with the words of the Fifly- 
 fifth Psalm expiring on his lips. 
 
 Darnley was depised by the loyal for his treatment of his 
 wife, while the disloyal had his foul treachery to avenge. 
 Here is the estimate of his standing and character made 
 by Scotch Protestant historians, — 
 
 Bishop Keith credits Darnley with some good natural 
 qualifications, adding. 
 
 " But then, to balance these, he was much addicted to intemper- 
 ance, to base and unmanly pleasures ; he was haughty and proud, 
 and so very weak in mind as to be a prey to all that came about 
 him," etc. 
 
 " Addicted to drunkenness," says Roberston, " beyond what the 
 manners of that age could bear, and indulging irregular passions 
 
 1 " To the philosophical student of history it is not a pleasing matter for 
 reflection that, while the unexampled forbearance and humanity exhibited 
 toward her rebellious subjects by Mary only encouraged them to fresh at- 
 tacks upon her authority, the ruthless policy of her sister queen proved 
 eventually successful." — Hosack, p. 509. 
 
darnley's character. 
 
 135 
 
 which even the licentiousness of youth could not excuse, he, by 
 his indecent behavior, provoked the Queen to the utmost ; and 
 the passions which it occasioned often forced tears from her eyes, 
 both in public and private." " A debauchee, a babbler, and a fool 
 — universally hated and depised." 
 
 " Darnley was a fool, and a vicious and presumptuous fool. 
 There is scarcely to be found in his character the vestige of a 
 good quality." " He indulged in every vicious appetite — to the 
 extent of his physical capacity — over-ate himself and drank 
 hard. His amours were notorious and disgusting — he broke the 
 seventh commandment with the most dissolute and degraded be- 
 cause they were on that account the most accessible of their 
 sex." (Burton, vol. iv. 296.) 
 
 It will be remembered that, when Mary was disposed to 
 pardon the principal conspirators in the Riccio murder, 
 Darnley opposed it, and denounced some who until then 
 had been unknown. They retaliated by accusing him of 
 having instigated the plot, and laid the bonds for the murder 
 before the Queen, who then, for the first time, saw through 
 his duplicity. He was thus, in the expressive words of Mr. 
 Tytler, the " principal conspirator against her, the defamer 
 of her honor, the plotter against her liberty and her crown, 
 the almost murderer of herself and her unborn babe." He 
 was " convicted as a traitor and a liar, false to his own 
 honor, false to her, false to his associates in crime." ^ Mel- 
 ville, Du Croc, and other eye-witnesses have given us vivid 
 pictures of the keen suffering and poignant grief caused 
 Mary by her disappointment in the handsome youth on 
 whom she had lavished her affections ^ — grief a hundred- 
 fold increased by the silence which love for Darnley and 
 respect for herself imposed upon her. 
 
 1 Even Mr. Froude is not far wrong when he describes (viii. 284) Darnley 
 as "left to wander alone about the country as if the curse of Cain was 
 clinging to him." 
 
 2 " That very power," says Robertson, " which with liberal and unsuspici- 
 ous fondness she had conferred upon him, he had employed to insult her 
 authority, to limit her prerogative, and to endanger her person." 
 
136 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 " She is still sick," writes Du Croc in November, " and I be- 
 lieve the principal part of her disease to consist of a deep grief 
 and sorrow ; nor can she, it seems, forget the same ; again and 
 again she says she wishes she were dead." 
 
 Again he writes after the baptism, of her exerting her- 
 self so much to entertain her company on that occasion, 
 that it made her forget in a good measure her former ail- 
 ments." He found her " weeping sore." " I am much grieved 
 at the many troubles and vexations she meets with." If 
 Mary Stuart had been the woman portrayed by Mr. Froude, 
 she would have made Scotland ring with her complaints of 
 Darnley's misconduct. Instead of these, we see suppressed 
 grief, sighs, melancholy, dark brooding sorrow, and illness 
 that brought her to death's door. 
 
 It is matter of surprise that even our historian should 
 have the weakness to adopt Buchanan's silly story of the 
 poisoning of Darnley.^ Nevertheless he does so with the 
 solemn face of the teller of a ghost story who believes his 
 fable. The abundant testimony as to the true nature of 
 Darnley*s illness should have warned him against so hazard- 
 ous an experiment ; — but Darnley poisoned is so much 
 more interesting to this historian than Darnley down with 
 the small-pox, that he cannot see the Bedford dispatch. 
 Always inspired by Buchanan, but careful never to cite 
 
 1 We regret that want of space will not permit copious citation from 
 Buchanan's Detection. Here is a specimen of his method of proving Mary- 
 Stuart's gui'lt. " When he (Darnley) was preparing to depart for Glasgow, 
 she caused poison to be given to him. You will ask: By whom? In what 
 manner? What kind of poison? Where had she it? Ask you these 
 questions? as though wicked princes ever wanted ministers of their wicked 
 treacheries. But still you press me, perhaps, and still you ask me, AVho he 
 these ministers? If this cause were to be pleaded before grave Cato the 
 Censor, all this were easy for us to prove before him that was persuaded that 
 there is no adultress but the same is also a poisoner. Need we seek for a 
 more substantial witness than Cato, every one of whose sentences antiquity 
 esteemed as so many oracles? Shall we not in a manifest thing believe 
 him whose credit hath in things doubtful so oft prevailed? Lo, here a man 
 of singular uprightness, and of most notable faithfulness and credit, beareth 
 witness against a woman burning in hatred of her husband," etc. 
 
BUCHANAN'S POISON. 
 
 137 
 
 him, he substantially copies the charge that Darnley was 
 poisoned, and was lying sick at Glasgow, but suppresses the 
 passage "and yit all this quhyle the queue wuld ngt suffer 
 sa mekle as ane Phisitioun anis to cum at him," because he 
 well knows that Mary quickly sent her own skillful French 
 surgeon, who rescued the patient from the hands of a Dr. 
 Abernethy of the Lennox household, who was really poison- 
 ing him with antidotes. With dreadful sarcasm we are told 
 of " a disease which the court and the friends of the court 
 were pleased to call small-pox." And yet the Earl of Bed- 
 ford, Elizabeth's minister, wrote to Cecil, January 9, 
 1566-7 : " The King is now at Glasgow with his father, and 
 there lyeth full of the smallpockes, to whom the Queen 
 hath sent her phisician." Drury, the English agent on the 
 Border, sends a dispatch of the same nature, and there is 
 abundant other contemporary evidence to the same effect. 
 
 So far as Mary is personally concerned, all this portion 
 of Mr. Fronde's book is the echo or the amplification of 
 Buchanan, who says that the Queen and Bothwell for 
 months before the baptism of the prince were living in 
 adultery in a manner so public and notorious, " as tliey 
 seemed to fear nothing more than lest their wickedness should 
 he unknown'' This being the case, there ought to be no 
 difficulty in producing abundant contemporary evidence to 
 corroborate it. But not a tittle of proof exists that even 
 reports of that nature were in circulation until after Darn- 
 ley's death. During all the period referred to, the dis- 
 patches of the English and French ambassadors contain, 
 almost day by day, the fullest accounts of everything — 
 even matters of the most private nature — that took place 
 at court ; but the letters of neither Bedford nor Du Croc 
 contain the slightest hint to aid Messrs. Buchanan and 
 Fronde. What is more significant, not a syllable of the 
 kind can be found even in the reports made up by Drury 
 on the Border out of all the gossip and scandal that came 
 in a steady stream from his paid spies and from public 
 
138 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 rumor. In this connection it may be remarked that this 
 criminal charge is made against a woman who from her 
 position as a sovereign could never obtain the privacy and 
 shelter from observation which are always at the command 
 of persons in private life. 
 
 Such intercourse as is here referred to, even if it es- 
 caped public attention, the watchful eyes and ears of for- 
 eign and inimical ambassadors, discontented courtiers, and 
 paid spies, could by no possibility elude the ever present 
 and intimate observation of servants and domestics. We 
 all know that in cases where such matters undergo legal 
 investigation, the most direct testimony is always found in 
 possession of this class, who, if females, are generally most 
 severe towards their own sex, especially if of high social 
 rank. The reflection has frequently been made, — and 
 it is of value, — that of all the numerous household of 
 Mary Stuart, Scotch, French, and English, men, women, 
 girls, and boys, Protestants and Catholics, not a solitary 
 witness was ever pretended to be produced against her, 
 even when dethroned, powerless, and in prison. Does any 
 one object the Paris pai3er ? That worthless document 
 owes its existence to the very fact here pointed out. Out- 
 side the Paris deposition and the casket-letters, not 
 even the ingenuity of Mr. Froude can discover testimony 
 except in Buchanan and his own imagination. From 
 Darnley's conversation with Mary at Glasgow, it is evi- 
 dent that all her movements had been watched, and re- 
 ported to him by those who were perfectly willing to tell 
 rather more than less. Swiftly he would have known any 
 report of the kind. It was precisely during the time re- 
 ferred to by Buchanan and Froude that Du Croc repre- 
 sents Mary as never standing higher in public estimation, 
 and that Queen Elizabeth was deeply angered at finding 
 the English Parliament of the same opinion, and on dis- 
 covering from their address in November the evident 
 strength of Mary's partisans in both houses. De Silva 
 
Mary's popularity. 
 
 139 
 
 writes to Spain, " The Queen has so much cfredit with the 
 good all over the realm, that the blame is chiefly laid on the 
 Lord Darnley." (See Froude, viii. 318.) And in the same 
 letter, " The question (in Parliament) will be forced in 
 the Queen of Scots' interest, and with the best intentions. 
 Her friends are very numerous," etc. " All England then 
 bore her majesty great reverence," is Melville's report at 
 the same time. 
 
 Our historian appears to be able to see but one event 
 between Christmas (1566) and January 14 (1567), and 
 that event is incorrectly dated. It is the meeting of Both- 
 well and Morton at " the hostelry of Whittingham." (viii. 
 360.) That Whittingham ^ should be turned into a 
 " hostelry " is not of much consequence, but that we find 
 no mention made of Maitland's presence there,^ is impor- 
 tant. It is well established by George Douglas' letter, 
 and by a letter of Drury to Cecil (January 2od), " The 
 Lord Morton lieth at the Lord of Whittingham's, where 
 the Lord Bodwell and Ledingtoft came of late to visit." 
 We do not care to expose in detail the poor device to ac- 
 quit Morton on his own confession of participation in the 
 Darnley murder. If that confession is admitted by Mr. 
 Froude, he must also accept Bothyell's confession.^ The 
 men were both so full of all evil that it miorht be difficult 
 for some to choose between them, except that Bothwell 
 never took English bribes, and had not, like Morton, on his 
 soul anything so meanly black as the selling of the Duke 
 of Northumberland. Morton's confession is worthless. He 
 had entered into the bond for the murder before coming 
 
 o 
 
 to Scotland. 
 
 Our historian says not a word of the reports concerning 
 the plot of Darnley and his father, of Murray's warning the 
 
 1 It was a castle with valuable domains attached, the property of Mor- 
 ton, and the gift of the Queen to him two years before. 
 
 2 See Appendix, voL ii. p. 424, Robertson. 
 8 See Appendix No. 13. 
 
140 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Queen that the plot threatened her life and her throne, of 
 the meeting and action of the Privy Council of January 10, 
 of the drawing of a warrant by Murray and Maitland for 
 the arrest and imprisonment of Darnley, its presentation to 
 Mary, and her refusal to sign it. The reports of the trea- 
 sonable designs of Lennox and Darnley had been traced 
 to two Glasgow men, Hiegate and Walcar, and the Queen 
 had but to allow Murray and Maitland to act, and she 
 would soon have been legally rid of Darnley. But she 
 refused to believe the reports, had Hiegate and Walcar 
 examined before the Council, cross-examined them herself, 
 and did not rest until the whole matter was thoroughly 
 sifted. 
 
 The plot to murder Darnley was entered into by the 
 conspirators after the foilure at Craigmillar to obtain Mary's 
 consent to the divorce. So that they were but rid of him, 
 it was immaterial to them as to the means, although they 
 would, probably, have been satisfied to dispense with mur- 
 der. Hence the attempt " to git him convict of treason 
 because he consented to hir Grace's detention," etc. Mean- 
 time emissaries were industrious in sowing discord between 
 Mary and her husband. One story ran that Mary was to 
 be dethroned by Lennox and his son ; another, that Darn- 
 ley was to be imprisoned, which report was carried by 
 Lord Minto to Lennox, who swiftly told his son. George 
 Douglas (nephew of Morton) states that at Whittingham 
 he was requested by Morton to accompany Bothwell and 
 Maitland to Edinburgh and to return with such answer as 
 they could obtain of her majesty, " which being given to 
 me by the same persons, as God shall be my judge, was no 
 other than the words, ' show to the Earl of Morton that 
 the Queen will hear no speech of that matter appointed 
 unto him.' " Now if this be true, the warrant which the 
 Queen refused to sign, as already stated, is what is here 
 referred to. If it was, as Mr. Fronde strives to show, " a 
 warrant "'for Darnley's murder, Maitland could have told 
 
MARY "AND DARNLEY. 
 
 141 
 
 us of it. In any event, the best case made for Morton is 
 that, perfectly apprised of the " bond " to murder Darnley, 
 he stood by silent and motionless and saw it carried into 
 effect. In making his "confession " he was asked by the 
 ministers " if he did not counsel him (Bothwell) to the con- 
 trary," he coolly replied " I counseled him not to the con- 
 trary." 
 
 Walcar and Hiegate were servants of the Archbishop of 
 Glasgow (then in Paris), to whom Mary reported their con- 
 duct. As she made complaint, it was necessary to explain 
 the nature of their offense, and the statements made con- 
 cerning the plots of Lennox and Darnley. " As for the 
 King our husband," she says, — 
 
 " God knows always our part towards him ; and his behavior 
 and thankfulness to us is equally well known to God and the 
 world ; specially our own indifferent (impartial) subjects see it, 
 and in their hearts, we doubt not, condemn the same. Always 
 we perceive him occupied and busy enough to have inquisition 
 of our doings, which, God willing, shall ever be such as none shall 
 have occasion to be offended with them, or to report of us any- 
 ways but honorably, however he, his father, and their fautors 
 speak, which we know want no good-will to make us have ado, 
 if tlieir power were equivalent to their minds." 
 
 Of all these matters here is our historian's record : " On 
 the 20th (January) she wrote a letter to the Archbishop of 
 Glasgow at Paris, complaining of her husband's behavior 
 to her, while the poor wretch was still lying on his sick- 
 bed," etc. Note " the poor wretch " — a very clever stroke. 
 But otherwise we cannot compliment the passage, which 
 may be best described in Mr. Fronde's own words as " turn- 
 ing history into a mere creation of the imaginative sympa- 
 thies." Mr. Froude is evidently not strong in the philos- 
 ophy nor in the rules of evidence. Such a performance as 
 he describes is scarcely compatible with a design against a 
 man so soon to be removed by murder. Mr. Froude never 
 tires of telling us how clever Mary Stuart was. "Would 
 
142 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 such a woman write a letter calculated to form ground of 
 suspicion against her? So far as she does complain she 
 does it in terms at once dignified and proper and with am- 
 ple justice. Her ambassador at Paris was her most trusted 
 friend and adviser, and, as we shall see, this letter was not 
 specially written to complain of Darnley, but concerning 
 numerous matters of importance. The Queen and Darnley 
 were in correspondence at the time, and his letters, which 
 were contrite, induced her visit to Glasgow. Even Craw- 
 ford's deposition makes Mary ask " what is meant by the 
 cruelty mentioned in his letters" (not " his letter"), and 
 Darnley's reply is, " It is of you only that will not accept 
 my offers and repentance." In Mr. Froude's account of 
 this interview we find, as usual, his accomplished actress 
 and keen-witted woman falling far short of the ability with 
 which he seeks to endow her. Was it in the celebrated 
 Medicean-Machiavellic school she learned that flies were 
 caught with vinegar ? What a clumsy piece of work to 
 begin by interrogating Darnley as to the unfavorable re- 
 ports of his conduct ? Was that " a seductive wile ? " All 
 her language, all her bearing here, is that of the sensible 
 woman and the affectionate wife. Darnley's course had 
 been simply outrageous. 
 
 Mary had everything to forgive, and the foolish young 
 man appears to have at last taken a proper view of his 
 conduct. Mary came to him in affection, but with well- 
 merited reproaches. His outspoken and apparently sincere 
 penitence, his affection, and his earnest desire again to. 
 be united to her, all tend to reconcile her. " I desire no 
 other," said he, "but that we may be together as hus- 
 band and wife ; and if ye will not consent thereto, I desire 
 never to rise forth from this bed." So Crawford states 
 Darnley's language in his deposition ; but Mr. Froude has 
 a special version of his own, which materially changes its 
 meaning. Crawford was the retainer and friend of the 
 traitor Lennox, and his insolent demeanor to the Queen, 
 
MARY AND DARNLEY. 
 
 143 
 
 who " bade him hold his peace," showed his enmity to her. 
 What he represents as Darnley's doubt and suspicions were 
 simply his own malicious suggestions. The " History " 
 makes him say, " Why did she not take him (Darnley) to 
 Holyrood." He really said, " If she desired his company, 
 she would take him to his own house at Edinburgh" — at 
 once artfully flattering Darnley's pride by styling the royal 
 residence his house'' and reviving the old sore as to the 
 " crown matrimonial." 
 
CHAPTER XIIT. 
 
 GLASGOW AND KIRK o' FIELD. 
 
 " The prodigious lies which have been published in this age, in matters of 
 fact, with unblushing confidence, .... doth call men to take heed what 
 history they believe," etc. — Richard Baxter, Author of A Call to the 
 Unconverted. 
 
 At page 361, vol. viii., we find some philosophical reflec- 
 tions on the difRciilties " the historian " has to encounter, 
 and we are told, with some truth, " The so-called certain- 
 ties of history are but probabilities in varying degrees." 
 But when the historical narrative is resumed, the writer ap- 
 pears to have no conception of the corollary of his doc- 
 trine, namely, that things merely probable must not be 
 stated as certain. It is at this stage of his work that our 
 historian at almost every page is forcing the reader's hand 
 — so to speak — by coupling Mary's name with that of 
 Bothwell as " her lover." " She set out for Glasgow at- 
 tended by her lover." The Queen left Edinburgh January 
 24th. But Murray's journal makes Bothwell start for Lid- 
 desdale, a different direction, on that very day. Hence it 
 is found necessary to fix her departure on the 23d, which 
 Mr. Froude does ; although Murray in his diary places it 
 on the 21st. We know that she was accompanied by her 
 lord chancellor, the Earl of Huntly, and a retinue. " They 
 spent the night at Callander together." Reader to suppose 
 some " hostelry." Mary Stuart spent the night with her 
 friends Lord and Lady Livingston, who were among the 
 most faithful of her Protestant nobility, and for whose in- 
 fant she had stood s^odmother a few months before. It 
 suits the historian's purpose to conceal the high standing 
 
MOTHER OR SON? 
 
 145 
 
 and respectability of Mary's hosts. " Mary Stuart pursued 
 her journey attended by Bothwell's French servant, Paris." 
 (viii. 3G2.) Mary Stuart pursued her journey attended by 
 the Earl of Huntly, Lord Livingston, the Hamiltons and 
 their followers, and numerous gentlemen, so that before she 
 reached Glasgow her train amounted to nearly five hun- 
 dred horsemen. " The news that she was on her way to 
 Glasgow anticipated her appearance there." Really this 
 is not surprising when we know that the Queen had sent 
 repeated messages and letters that she was coming. And 
 now comes a blunder of our historian, almost incredible in 
 its grossness : — 
 
 " Darnley was still confined to his room ; but, hearing of her 
 approach, he sent a gentleman who .was in attendance on him, 
 named Crawford, a noble, fearless kind of person, to apologize 
 for his inability to meet her." (viii. 363.) 
 
 This is amazing. A man down with the small-pox apol- 
 odzes for not cominsr out five miles on horseback in a Scotch 
 January ! That Mr. Tytler committed the error of taking 
 Crawford, who was a retainer of Lennox (Darnley's fa- 
 ther), for a retainer of Darnley, is no excuse for a modern 
 writer with ten times Ty tier's advantages. It was the' of- 
 ficial duty of the Earl of Lennox to have met and escorted 
 the Queen into Glasgow, and he sent Crawford to present 
 his humble Gowimendations to her majesty, " with his ex- 
 cuses for not coming to meet her in person, praying her 
 grace not to think it was either from pride or ignorance of 
 his duty, but because he was indisposed at the time," etc. 
 Mr. Froude has before his eyes Murray's diary, with the 
 entry : " January 23d. The queue came to Glasgow, and 
 on the rode met her Tkos. Crawford from the Earl of Len- 
 nox." He has the minutes of the English Commission- 
 ers, who describe Crawford as " a gentleman of the Earl of 
 Lennox." He has seen the abstract describing this pas- 
 sage as " Nuncius Patris in itinere " — " The Message of 
 the Father in the Gait," but cannot consent to spoil his 
 10 
 
146 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 tableau. There is another reason. Murray's diary and 
 date January 23d plays havoc with the chronology of our 
 historian and that of the casket-letters. And yet another, 
 which is, that Crawford, according to his own account, 
 was a mischief-maker and a spy, commissioned by Len- 
 nox to eavesdrop and report what he might see and hear 
 in Glasgow castle. Being enlisted against Mary Stuart, 
 Crawford ipso facto becomes "a noble, fearless kind of 
 person." When not employed in weaving garlands for 
 Murray, Mr. Froude gives all his spare time throughout 
 these volumes in delivering certificates of excellence, re- 
 wards of merit, and prizes of virtue to all and sundry 
 who may appear in enmity to Maiy Stuart. Our writer 
 goes on with his sketch, assuring us that Darnley's " heart 
 half-sank within him when he was told that she was com- 
 ing," and ascribing to the son the " fear " of the father. 
 Then follow four pages in which Mary's inmost thoughts 
 and the most secret workings of her wicked desions are 
 laid bare to the reader. He even sees the " odd glitter of 
 her eyes," and assures us that " Mary Stuart was an ad- 
 mirable actress ; rarely, perhaps, on the world's stage has 
 there been a more skillful player ; " adding, " She had still 
 some natural compunction." 
 
 Almost amusing is Mr. Froude's haste to reach the point 
 where he may avail himself of the forged casket-letters and 
 the Paris confession. He clutches at them as a drowning 
 man at a plank, and hastens to weave their contents into 
 his narrative, with skillful admixture of warp of Buchanan, 
 woof of " casket," and color and embroidery wholly his own. 
 He thus introduces them in a note (viii. 362) : " The authen- 
 ticity of these letters will be discussed in a future volume 
 in connection with their discovery, and with the examination 
 of them which then took place." Of course this promise is 
 not kept, and when we reach the period of promised re- 
 demption, we find it, substantially, a repetition of what he 
 relies on at the outset. " The inquiry at the time appears 
 
PLACE OR PLAN? 
 
 147 
 
 to nie to supersede authoritatively all later conjectures.'* 
 We shall presently see what this "inquiry at the time" 
 amounted to, as also the nature and substance of these 
 conjectures. Our historian greatly needs the aid of the 
 forged casket-letters, and is swift to avail himself of them. 
 One would think they were strong enough for his purpose. 
 Not so. At page 368, vol. viii., a passage is cited in which 
 Mary is made to write to Bothwell, " the place shall hold 
 to the death" (Scotch version), "place" meaning castle or 
 stronghold. The French version has it " cette forteresse." 
 But Mr. Froude alters place to plan, — " the plan shall 
 hold to the death." 
 
 Darnley was brought in a litter by easy stages from 
 Glasgow to Edinburgh, and was four (not two) days on the 
 road. And now we have this sketch (viii. 373) : — 
 
 " As yet he knew nothing of the change of his destination, and 
 supposed that he was going to Craigmillar. Bothwell, however, 
 met the cavalcade outside the gates and took charge of it. No 
 attention was paid either to the exclamations of the attendants 
 or the remonstrances of Darnley himself; he was informed that 
 the Kirk-a-Field house was most convenient for him, and to 
 Kii-k-a-Field he was conducted." 
 
 As history, this statement comes to grief in presence of 
 the testimony of Murray's swift witness, Thomas Nelson, 
 described by Mr. Froude as Darnley's " groom of the 
 chamber." Nelson testifies : — 
 
 "Item, the Deponat remembers it was dewysit in Glasgow, 
 that the King suld half lyne first in Craigmillar. But because He 
 had Na Will thairof the purpors was alterit, and conclusion takin 
 that he suld ly beside the Kirk of Field." 
 
 Nelson, after Darnley's death, entered the service of the 
 Countess of Lennox, the mother of Darnley, who must 
 have heard from him, more than once, all he had to say 
 touching Darnley's stay at Glasgow and at Kirk o' Field. 
 1 Anderson, vol. iv. p. 165. 
 
148 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Yet the Countess before her death was fully convinced of 
 Mary's innocence, and so wrote her. 
 
 THE MURDER OF DARNLEY.^ 
 
 Our historian's narrative of the events of February 9th 
 is a mere fancy sketch. We are told that, after attending 
 the ceremony of marriage of her attendants Bastian and 
 Margaret Garwood, — 
 
 " When the service was over, the Queen took an early supper 
 •with Lady Argyll, and afterwards, accompanied by Cassilis, 
 Huntly, and the Earl of Argyll himself, she went as usual to 
 spend the evening with her husband, and professed to intend to 
 stay the night with him. The hours passed on. She was more 
 than commonly tender ; and Darnley, absorbed in her caresses,'* 
 etc. 
 
 The suggestion of a quiet " early " supper with Lady 
 Argyll is ingenious. It lodges in the mind of the reader 
 the idea that this woman is getting ready betimes for her 
 work. But the quiet little tete-a-tete supper turns out to 
 be a grand banquet given (at the usual early hour of supper 
 of that period) by the Bishop of Argyll, in honor of the 
 Ambassador of Savoy and his suite, who were to take their 
 leave the next day. On leaving the banquet to visit Darn- 
 ley the Queen was attended, not only by the three noble- 
 men visible to Mr. Froude, but by all the noble guests 
 present, who accompanied her to Kirk o' Field, where they 
 paid their respects to Darnley, the Queen thus holding 
 with him a small court reception.^ There was no "pro- 
 
 1 The fullest statement of the facts connected Avith the murder of Darn- 
 ley is that given b}' Miss Strickland in the thirtieth chapter of her Life of 
 Mary Stuart. The sixth chapter of Mr. Hosack's work is an admirable 
 legal analysis of the testimony bearing on the same event. 
 
 Clernault, the French Envoy, wrote home: " The King being lodged at 
 one end of the city of Edinburgh and the Queen at the other, the said lady 
 came to see him on a Sunda}'" evening, which was the 9th of this month, 
 about seven o'clock, with all the principal lords of her court, and after having 
 remained with him two or three hours, she withdrew to attend the bridal of 
 one of her gentlemen, according to her promise ; and if she had not made 
 
MURDER OF DARNLEY. 
 
 149 
 
 fessed to intend to stay " in the case. On the contrary, 
 she had promised days before to attend the mask and ball 
 at Holyrood that night. " The hours passed on." They 
 usually do. It is a habit they have. " Absorbed in her 
 caresses," — as the historian's information is here evidently 
 exclusive, we decline remark. Then (viii. 379) we have 
 a word-painting profuse in the picturesque, but sober in 
 authenticated facts. In it Mary Stuart is very hateful, and 
 Darnley very lovely ; all with such rubbish as the Queen's 
 sending back to " fetch a fur wrapper, which she thought 
 too pretty to be spoiled," ^ and Darnley's opening the Eng- 
 lish Prayer-book to read the Fifty-fifth Psalm — " if his 
 servant's tale was true." What servant's tale ? All Darn- 
 ley's servants who were with him perished that night ex- 
 cept Nelson, who tells some surprising stories in his deposi- 
 tion, but does not get as far as the prayers. 
 
 Attention has been drawn to the threat of revenge ^ which 
 Mr. Froude puts into the Queen's mouth, and to the use 
 he makes of his own prophecy. We now read (ix. 378) : 
 " As she left the room she said, as if by accident, * It was 
 just this time last year that Ritzio was slaine.' " The 
 authority given for the statement is " Caldervvood." Cal- 
 derwood ? who is Calderwood ? queries the reader. Was 
 he a servant of Darnley ? Was he present at Kirk oj Field, 
 and did he hear the Queen say those words ? Or, per- 
 chance, was he a contemporary who received the statement 
 from a reliable source ? No information is given concern- 
 ing him by our historian but the bare name Calderwood. 
 We find on examination that Darnley had been dead twenty 
 
 that promise, it is believed that she would have remained till twelve or one 
 o'clock with him, seeing the good understanding and union in which the 
 said lady Queen and the King her husband had been living for the last three 
 weeks." 
 
 1 An English writer remarks: " This is making her not the most wicked 
 of women, but an incarnate fiend ! Where is the proof that her reason for 
 sending back was not simply that the night was cold? " 
 
 2 Ante, p. 99. 
 
150 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 years when Calderwood was born, and that about half a 
 century thereafter he wrote a Historie of the Kirk of 
 Scotland." With its merits as a history of the Kirk we 
 have nothing to do, but in so far as it undertakes to chron- 
 icle secular matters, — which it does at some length, — it is 
 the merest trash, made up exclusively of Buchanan and the 
 verbal gossip current among the enemies of the Queen of 
 Scots.^ He does not even pretend to cite authority for his 
 statements, but runs on in a wishy-washy stream of old 
 wives' tales. No serious historian quotes him. But it is 
 written that Mr. Froude shall not cite anything correctly, 
 not even poor Calderwood, who wrote not what the histo- 
 rian puts into his mouth, but, — " Among other speeches 
 she said that about the same time a bygane a yeare, David 
 Kizio was slaine." 
 
 We are told that on the night of the murder " Mary 
 Stuart had slept soundly." This is on Buchanan's authority, 
 but his language is not cited.^ We insist on producing it. 
 Buchanan says that, when Mary Stuart heard that Darnley 
 was killed, " she settled herself to rest, with a countenance 
 so quiet and a mind so untroubled that she sweetly slept 
 till the next day at noon." Mr. Froude himself has a much 
 finer picture (viii. 370) : " With these thoughts in her mind 
 Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, lay down upon her bed — 
 to sleep, doubtless — sleep with the soft tranquillity of an in- 
 nocent child." There need be no doubt now as to the ex- 
 pression of Mary's features on that occasion. To be sure, 
 there exists a difficulty in reconciling Buchanan and Paris. 
 
 1 We are entirely of Mr. Froude's opinion when he says (v. 277): " The 
 probability is immeasurably great that all charges produced long afterdate 
 against persons who have excited the animosity of a theological or political 
 faction are lies." 
 
 2 The enemies of Mary Stuart find Buchanan indispensable, but are 
 ashamed to cite him by name. We have seen M. Mignet's device to avoid 
 mention of him. (Appendix No. 3.) Mr. Froude uses his filthy material 
 constantly, but, it is said, quotes him by name but once in all his volumes. 
 This is a mistake. He cites Buchanan by name three times (iv. 179, vii. 
 383, and ix. 7), but none of these citations relate directly to Mary Stuart. 
 
AFTER THE MURDER. 
 
 151 
 
 The first says Mary slept till noon ; the second, that he saw 
 her awake between nine and ten o'clock. Mr. Fronde 
 places implicit faith in both — which is proper and con- 
 sistent, any testimony against Mary Stuart being good tes- 
 timony. • Our historian goes on : " The room was already 
 hunor ^vith black and liiihted with candles." This was be- 
 tween nine and ten in the morning. The explosion took 
 place at three o'clock. Now, either Mary Stuart must have 
 suspended the sound sleep, of which Buchanan and Mr. 
 Froude, of all the people in the world, appear to know any- 
 thmg, or else she, " the keenest-witted woman living " (viii. 
 225), was fool enough to order the room to be hung with 
 black before Darnley was killed. Will Mr. Froude ex- 
 plain ? We place at his service a few friendly hints. " Son 
 lict tendu de noir,'^ does not mean, as he translates, " The 
 room was already hung with black." It means that the 
 bed was hung with black. Lict or lit means bed ; chamhre 
 means a room. The word icelle, in his note (ix. 5), does 
 not make sense. It is evidently a misprint for la ruelle, 
 meaning the space between the bed and the wall. Paris 
 illuminates this ruelle with " de la chandelle." Mr. Froude 
 improves this, and lights up the whole apartment. " Eat- 
 ing composedly, as Paris observed." But there is no such 
 thing as " eating composedly " in the text as furnished by 
 Mr. Froude himself. At pp. 5 and 6, vol. ix., he sums up 
 in a manner which perils his case and exposes its weakness. 
 Every line of the two long paragraphs commencing with 
 " Whatever may or may not," at p. 5, and ending with " of 
 all suspicion of it," contains either a misstatement or a mis- 
 representation. Some are their own best answer. The 
 others we proceed to dispose of. The self-possession which 
 is found so remarkable was simply the prostration of de- 
 spair. In the English Record OfRce, there is a letter writ- 
 ten the day after the murder, by the French Ambassador 
 in Scotland, which was intercepted by the English officials. 
 M. de Clernault wrote :."The fact (Darnley's death) being 
 
152 
 
 MAKY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 communicated to the Queen, one can scarcely think what 
 distress and agony it has thrown her into." 
 
 The Scottish lords leagued with Murray and with Both- 
 well for the murder of Darnley were among the worst men 
 known to history, and are thus forcibly portrayed by a late 
 English writer : — 
 
 " They were barefaced hars, they were ruthless foes, they were 
 Judas-like Mends. To garble evidence, to forge documents, to 
 put awkward witnesses out of the way by the poison-cup or the 
 dagger — these were familiar acts to men who frequented the 
 Scottish court, who were noble by birth and dignified by office. " 
 
 And these were the men ^ to whom Mary must look in 
 such an emergency for advice and aid. Can it be won- 
 dered that this young woman, the victim of the three atro- 
 cious plots of 1565, 1566, and 1567 — sick and heart- 
 broken — was not capable of acting with the wisdom of a 
 judge and the decision of a high-sheriff? If Mary Stuart 
 had been a hypocrite, she would have filled Holy rood with 
 clamorous sobs. The council was full of the assassins ; she 
 was assailed by treason, secret calumny, and English plots, 
 and without a single friend on whose advice she could rely, 
 or a single minister on whose counsel she could lean. It 
 was of their duty and their office to take the necessary steps. 
 They did nothing, and in a memorial afterward addressed 
 by Mary to the different European courts, she thus de- 
 scribes the situation : " Her majesty could not but marvel 
 at the little diligence they used, and that they looked at 
 one another as men who wist not what they say or do." 
 The anonymous placards could not help her to any knowl- 
 edge. She knew herself to be innocent, and it was nat- 
 ural not to believe Bothwell guilty. Why should she ? Of 
 all the noblemen about the court he had never shown any 
 enmity to Darnley, and they had always been on friendly 
 terms. On the other hand, the feud between Darnley and 
 
 1 Huntly, the chancellor, and Argyll, the lord justice, were both in the 
 plot. 
 
MARY'S PROCLAMATION. 
 
 153 
 
 Murray was of ancient date and well-ascertained origin. 
 As far back as March, 15G4, Randolph writes Cecil : — 
 
 " What opinion the young Lord (Darnley) hath conceived of 
 him (Murray) that lately, talking with Lord Robert who shewed 
 him the Scottish map what lands my Lord of Moray had, and in 
 what bounds, the Lord Darnley said that it was too much. This 
 came to my Lord of Moray's ears and so to the Queen who ad- 
 vised my Lord Darnley to excuse himself to my Lord of Moray. 
 These suspicions and heart burnings between these noblemen 
 may break out to great inconveniences.' ' 
 
 Randolph prophesied truly. They did " break out " " to 
 great inconveniences." 
 
 In the hurry of rapid narrative, Mr. Froude has forgot- 
 ten to state that the Queen ordered a proclamation to be 
 immediately issued, offering a reward of £2,000 and a pen- 
 sion for life for discovery of the murderers, with promise 
 of " free pardon to any person, even if a partaker in the 
 crime," adding that " the Queen's majesty unto whom of 
 all others, the case was most grievous, would rather lose 
 life and all than that it should remain unpunished." In 
 his letter of March 6 to Mary, the Archbishop of Glasgow 
 refers to this declaration, and the reference is tortured 
 into a reproach to Mary (ix. 16) : "She preferred to be- 
 lieve that she was herself the second object of the con- 
 spiracy, yet she betrayed neither surprise nor alarm." ^ 
 And at the next page we are told of a dispatch containing 
 " a message to her from Catherine de Medicis that her 
 husband^s life was in danger." Mr. Froude is really incor- 
 rigible. The message never existed but in his imagina- 
 tion. Catherine had nothing whatever to do with the warn- 
 ing, did not even know that it was given, and of course 
 sent no message. He is never at a loss for an occasion to 
 
 1 Mr. Burton too accuses Mary of " endeavoring to stamp, on the first 
 news of the tragedy, the impression that she had herself made a providen- 
 tial escape." But the Scotch historian may not be acquainted with the 
 warning letter from Paris. 
 
154 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 couple Mary Stuart's name with that of Catherine de Medi- 
 cis, although full well knowing there never was any sympathy 
 between them, and that, next to Elizabeth, she was Mary's 
 most pitiless enemy. " She preferred to believe ! " There 
 was no choice whatever, for the dispatch (from Archbishop 
 Beaton in Paris) did not advise Mary that her husband's 
 life was in danger, but that Mary Stuart herself was in dan- 
 ger. It reads : " The ambassador of Spaigne requests me 
 to advertise you to tak heid to yourself. I have had sum 
 murmuring in likeways be others, that there be some sur- 
 prise to be transacted in your contrair," etc. And when 
 later the archbishop thanked the Spanish Ambassador in 
 the Queen's name for the warning he had given, the ambas- 
 sador replied : — 
 
 " Suppose it came too late, yet apprise her majesty that I am 
 informed, by the same means as I Avas before, that there is still 
 some notable enterprise in hand against her whereof I ivish her to 
 beware in time." 
 
 " She did not attempt to fly." If she had, Mr. Froude 
 is ready to say that she could not support the presence of 
 her victim. " She sent for none of the absent noblemen 
 to protect her," and " Murray was within reach, but she did 
 not seem to desire his presence ! " 
 
 The historian who makes these statements knows per- 
 fectly well that : First, Drury wrote Cecil at the time, " She 
 hath twice sent for the Earl of Murray, who stayeth himself 
 by my ladie in her sickness." Second, Melville also wrote 
 to Cecil that "Mary has summoned Murray and all the 
 lords," and that, " The Earl of Athol and the comptroller 
 of the royal household having gone away, the Queen or- 
 dered them back on penalty of rebellion." Third, The papal 
 legate in France wrote to the Duke of Tuscany that " Mur- 
 ray, summoned by the Queen, would not come." But, noth- 
 ing daunted, he continues : " Lennox, Darnley's father, was 
 at Glasgow or near it, but she did not send for him." 
 This statement gives the lie to Drury, who at the time re- 
 
BELIEF OF THE TIME. 
 
 155 
 
 •ported to Cecil that Mary sent for Lennox, and flatly con- 
 tradicts " the stainless," in whose diary, filed as a part of 
 the evidence against his sister, is found an entry of Febru- 
 ary 11 (day of the murder) to the effect that the Queen 
 sent for Lennox. " She spent the morning in writing a 
 letter to the Archbishop of Glasgow." Positively, she did 
 not. Haitian d wrote the letter. The Queen merely 
 signed it. 
 
 The flourish of Simancas quotation (Spanish) at page 
 381 amounts to nothing. Moret told De Silva nothing, for 
 the reason that he had nothing to tell. If there was any- 
 thing unfriendly in the tone of either it was on the part of 
 De Silva, not of Moret. The English Ambassador at 
 Madrid had reported the Spanish council as " disliking the 
 toleration the Queen of Scots allows to the Protestant re- 
 ligion in Scotland," and this is the secret of De Silva's 
 coldness towards Mary. Mr. Froude has concealed the 
 fact that Mary refused to join the Catholic League, and in 
 also concealing the cause of the Spanish ill-will towards 
 Mary, he leads the reader to suppose that it springs from 
 the belief in her complicity with the murder. 
 
 To the attention of readers who have studied the philos- 
 ophy of history, we commend the following entirely new 
 method of getting at the heart of a mystery : — 
 
 " It is therefore of the highest importance to ascertain the im- 
 mediate belief of the time at which the murder took place, while 
 party opinions were still unshaped and party action undeter- 
 mined. The reader is invited to follow the story as it unfolded 
 itself from day to day. He will be shown each event as it oc- 
 curred, with the impressions which it formed upon the minds of 
 those who had the best means of knowing the truth." (ix. 3.) 
 
 We are asked to receive as proofs, contemporary im- 
 pressions concerning the nature of a plot shrouded in 
 darkness, where those " who had the best means of know- 
 ing the truth " were precisely those whose lips were closely 
 sealed ; and, finally, to accept as evidence, contemporary 
 
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 impressions fabricated and juggled by vile assassins seek- 
 ing to throw the infamy of their crimes upon others. Will 
 some one take the "impressions which each event" con- 
 nected with the Nathan murder " formed upon the minds of 
 those who had the best means," etc., and tell us who killed 
 Mr. Nathan ? M. Wiesener thus accurately characterizes 
 this discovei-y of Mr. Froude : " To penetrate the deep 
 mystery of a wicked plot," stop the first man you meet in 
 the street, or — parlez au concierge. But if, as asserted, it 
 be true that it is of the highest importance to ascertain 
 the immediate belief of the time, why are we not told that 
 a published rumor accused Queen Elizabeth of tjie mur- 
 der ; that another one ascribed it to Catherine de Medicis; 
 that Buchanan states in his " Detection " that public report 
 in England pointed to Murray, Morton, and their friends 
 as the assassins, and that a far better authority (Camden) 
 confirms the same story ? 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE WITNf:SSES. 
 
 " An English jury would sooner believe the whole party perjured than 
 persuade themselves that so extraordinaiy a coincidence would have oc- 
 curred." 
 
 In introducing the evidence of Crawford, who was sent 
 by Lennox to spy and report upon the Queen while in Glas- 
 gow, Mr. Froude informs us, in a note (viii. 364), that 
 " the conversation as related by Darnley to Crawford tallies 
 exactly with that given by Mary herself to Bothwell in the 
 casket-letters." Tallies exactly ? Why, it tallies miracu- 
 lously. The conversation between Mary and Darnley oc- 
 curred in the last week of January, 1567. Crawford's dep- 
 osition was not taken until the summer of 1568, when it 
 •was given at the solicitation of Lennox and Murray's secre- 
 tary (Wood), who wrote to Crawford requesting him " by 
 all possible methods to search for more matters against her," 
 and specially to report everything he could ascertain as to 
 her coming to Glasgow, the company that came with her," 
 his discourse with her, all that passed between her and the 
 King, if she used to send any messages to Edinburgh, by whom 
 she sent them, etc. Crawford made his statement — a very 
 full one, but in it is wholly silent as to messengers sent by 
 the Queen. As the spy for Mary's enemy Lennox, he would 
 scarcely have overlooked her dispatching missives to Edin- 
 burgh. But the casket-letter story makes her send off two 
 letters from Glasgow, one by Paris and another by Beaton, 
 and although both these men were alive and easily obtained 
 for the Westminster examination, they were not produced. 
 
 But to return to " tallies exactly." It does, and for the 
 
158 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 excellent reason that the casket-letter describhig the same 
 interview set forth in Crawford's deposition was manu- 
 factured from that deposition. Both deposition and letter 
 recount the same conversation- Crawford claims to repeat 
 what Darnley told him of it, and the casket-letter is given 
 as Mary Stuart's relation of the same interview. It would 
 be but natural that Crawford's version, passing through two 
 memories, Darnley's and his own, should differ from Mary's ; 
 the more so as the latter is pretended to have been written 
 in January, 1567, while Crawford's deposition was given 
 eighteen months later, in 1568. Such difference would be 
 inevitable, and the variations in phraseology important. 
 Therefore we say that "exact tally," under the circum- 
 stances, is little less than miraculous, if not the result of 
 forgery. We subjoin specimens of the deposition and of 
 the letter. If two short-hand reporters had been present 
 at the conversation they could not have produced versions 
 so nearly alike. It will be remarked that not only is the 
 agreement of the three sources, Darnley, Crawford, and 
 Mary, perfect as to substance, but that the forms of ex- 
 pression are identical. Mr. Hosack well observes, — 
 
 " That any two persons should agree, with such perfect accu- 
 racy, in relating from memory a conversation of this length, is a 
 circumstance that must strike with astonishment every one who 
 has marked the discrepancies which every day occur in courts of 
 justice between intelligent witnesses even on the simplest matters 
 of fact." (p. 193.) 
 
 CRAWFORD'S DEPOSITION. 
 
 " You asked me what I meant 
 by the cruelty specified in my 
 letters;, it proceedeth of you 
 only, that will not accept my 
 offers and repentance. I con- 
 fess that I have failed in some 
 things, and yet greater faults 
 have been made to you sundry 
 
 ALLEGED LETTER OF THE 
 QUEEN. 
 
 " You asked me what I mean 
 by the cruelty contained in my 
 letter; it is of you alone, that 
 will not accept my offers and re- 
 pentance. I confess that I have 
 failed, but not into that which 
 I ever denied ; and such like 
 
Crawford's deposition. 
 
 159 
 
 times, which you have forgiven. 
 I am but young, and you will 
 say you have forgiven me divers 
 times. May not a man of my 
 age, for hick of counsel, of which 
 I am very destitute, fall twice 
 or thrice, and yet repent and be 
 chastised by experience? 
 
 " If I have made any faile 
 that you think a faile, howsoever 
 it be, I crave your pardone, and 
 protest that I shall never faile 
 againe. I desire no other thinge 
 but that we may be together as 
 husband and wife. And if ye 
 will not consent hereto, I desire 
 never to rise forthe of this bed. 
 Therefore I praye you give me 
 an answer hereunto," etc. 
 
 has failed to sundry of our sub- 
 jects, which you have forgiven. 
 I am young. You will say that 
 you have forgiven me ofttimes, 
 and that yet I return to my 
 faults. May not a man of my 
 age, for lack of counsel, fall 
 twice or thrice, or in lack of his 
 promise, and at last repent him- 
 self, and be chastised by expe- 
 rience ? 
 
 " If I may obtain pardon, I 
 protest I shall never make fault 
 again. And I crave no other 
 thing but that we may be at bed 
 and board together as husband 
 and wife ; and if ye will not 
 consent hereunto, I shall never 
 rise out of this bed. I pray 
 now, tell me your resolution,'* 
 etc. 
 
 The device of the Scotch forgers was clever. Crawford's 
 declaration once made, the idea readily suggested itself 
 to the conspirators of reproducing an account of the in- 
 terview, as though written by the Queen to Bothwell, 
 thus giving an air of vraisemhlance to the forged letters 
 most desirable for their purpose. It was done, but the 
 forger stuck too closely to the original. We are so fortu- 
 nate as to be able to cite on this point the admirably ex- 
 pressed (as to suspicious concordance of several versions) 
 opinion of a distinguished writer, who sums up the argu- 
 ment in a masterly manner, and we ask for it the reader's 
 special attention. He supposes the description of an inci- 
 dent by three different persons, and says: — * 
 
 " If we were to find but a single paragraph in which two out 
 of three agreed verbally, we should regard it as a very strange 
 coincidence. If all three agreed verbally, we should feel certain it 
 
160 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 teas more than accident. If throughout their letters there was a 
 recurring series of such passages, no doubt would be left in the 
 mind of any one that either the three correspondents had seen 
 each other's letters, or that each had had before him some com- 
 mon narrative Avhich he had incorporated in his own account. It 
 might be doubtful which of these two explanations was the true 
 one ; but that one or other of them was true, unless we suppose a 
 miracle, is as certain as any conclusion in human things can be 
 certain at 3ll. And were the wi-iters themselves, with their closest 
 fi-iends and comj^anions, to swear that there had been no inter- 
 communication, and no story preexisting of which they had made 
 use, and that each had written hand fide from his own original 
 observation, an English jury would sooner believe the whole party 
 perjured than persuade themselves that so extraordinary a coinci- 
 dence tcould have occurred." 
 
 This reasoning is incontrovertible. Now apply it to the 
 case under consideration. 
 
 The conversation between Darnley and Mary is the in- 
 cident. The Glasgow letter is one version of it; Dam- 
 ley's narrative to Crawford is another, and Crawford's dep- 
 osition the third. Thus the writer w^ cite has admirably 
 demonstrated that unless ice suppose a miracle, one of these 
 accounts (letter and deposition) was copied from the other. 
 We are also entirely of the opinion of Mr. Burton, who 
 finds that the casket-letter and Crawford's testimony agree 
 with an overwhelming exactness." 
 
 For the authority cited as of the opinion that an English 
 jury would sooner believe the whole party perjured, etc., 
 the passage may be found at p. 210 of Short Studies on 
 Great Subjects," by '-James Anthony Froude, M. A." 
 
 In introducing the deposition of Paris (Nicholas Hu- 
 bert), details are prudently avoided. "Paris made two 
 depositions, the first not touching Mary, the second fatally 
 implicating her." Yery true. The first deposition was a 
 voluntary one ; but he was tortured before the second was 
 taken. This last was read over in his presence. He 
 signed it, and was then executed, that there might be no 
 
DEPOSITION OF PARIS. 
 
 161 
 
 retraction or contradiction." (ix. 4.) Surely the precau- 
 tion was radical. But Paris could not have signed the 
 dejjositio7i, nor known what it contained, for he could 
 neither write nor read. " The haste and concealment," 
 continues Mr. Froude, "were merely intended to baffle 
 Elizabeth." Then there was " haste and concealment ! " 
 Let us see. Murray gave out that Paris was arrested in 
 Denmark and brought to Scotland in June, 1569, that his 
 first deposition was taken August 9, the second August 10, 
 and that he was executed August 16, 1569. There is no 
 record of his trial, no statement as to who interrogated him, 
 nor h/ what court he was condemned; nor is there any ju- 
 dicial or other proper legal authentication of his deposi- 
 tion. Murray wrote to Elizabeth that Paris "suffered 
 death by order of law " — law here, we suppose, standing 
 for " Murray." All others arrested fOr the Darnley mur- 
 der were tried and executed in Edinburgh ; but Paris was 
 secretly taken away from there, secretly tortured, secretly 
 tried, if tried at all, by Murray's orders, and finally exe- 
 cuted at St. Andrew's, Murray's own castle. On the scaf- 
 fold, he " declared before God that he never carried any such 
 letters, nor that the Queen was participant nor of coun- 
 sel in the cause." (Ty tier, vol. i. p. 29.) But, more than this, 
 Mr. Hosack, in his late work on Mary Stuart, proves, from 
 a document lately discovered in the Danish archives, that 
 Paris was delivered to Murray, not in the summer of 1569, 
 as Murray represented, but eight months earlier, namely, 
 on the 30th October, 1568, before the Westminster proceed- 
 ings had yet opened. Paris is the only witness made to 
 charge the Queen directly with adultery and murder. Mur- 
 ray could easily have produced him at Westminster, and 
 was not prevented by any delicacy of feeling, for these 
 were the very charges he himself brought against his sis- 
 ter. Meantime, the fact that Paris was then in Murray's 
 prison was kept a profound secret until long after the com- 
 mission had adjourned. The paper called the second depo- 
 11 
 
162 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 sition of Paris was written by one Robert Ramsay,^ and 
 witnessed by two of Murray's dependents, both, like him- 
 self, pensioners of Elizabeth, and prominent among the 
 worst enemies of Mary. When the depositions were sent 
 to London, the first was made known, but the second was 
 concealed, filed away among Cecil's papers, and not made 
 public until 1725. A distinguished English historian is of 
 the opinion that a charge of crime kept back or concealed 
 for twenty -five years cannot be relied upon as evidence. 
 What, then, are we to think of one concealed for one hun- 
 dred and fifty-six years? The historian we refer to is 
 Mr. Froude, who remarks upon the accusation brought 
 against Leicester of the murder of his wife, Amy Rob- 
 sart : — 
 
 " The charity of later years has inclined to believe that it was 
 a calumny invented, etc., etc. ; and as it was not published till 
 d quarter of a century after the crime — if crime there was — had 
 been committed, it will not he relied upon in this place for evidence." 
 (vii. 288.) 
 
 You see, we must draw the line somewhere. Against an 
 edifying English gentleman like Leicester, we cannot admit 
 testimony after, say, twenty years ; but it will give us great 
 pleasure to receive any evidence against Mary Stuart to the 
 end of time. The second deposition, taken August 10, was 
 secretly sent up to Cecil by Murray on the loth of October, 
 1569, " gif furder pruif be requirit." Cecil at once saw 
 that he could make no public use of a document like this 
 taken by and before such notorious agents of Murray as 
 Buchanan, Wood, and Ramsay, and, says Chalmers, " he 
 desired the hypocritical regent of Scotland to send him a 
 certified copy of the same declaration of Paris. Where- 
 upon a notary, one Alexander Hay, obliges Murray^ by cer- 
 tifying a copy as true, but, unfortunately for the credit of 
 the document, he omitted the names of the witnesses to the 
 original paper, and represented himself as sole witness to 
 
 1 "Writer of this declaration, servant to my Lord Regent's Grace." 
 
DEPOSITION OF PARIS. 
 
 163 
 
 the declaration of Paris ! " Hay was clerk of Alurray's 
 Privy Council. 
 
 Referring to this deposition of Paris, the " North Ameri- 
 can Review " (vol. xxxiv.) says it was " wrung from him by 
 torture, by those most deeply interested in finding Mary 
 guilty, .... under circumstances so suspicious through- 
 out that such evidence would not now be admitted by a 
 country justice in case of trover." 
 
 " Such testimony as that of Paris is justly rejected both 
 by the Roman and our own Scottish laws," says Bishop 
 Keith, Primate of the Scottish Episcopal Church. He 
 further exposes its inconsistencies in detail, and adds, " his 
 very declaration hammered out as it now stands, carries 
 along some things that have not the best aspect in the 
 world." 
 
 But not all " the charity of later years," nor Mr. Fronde's 
 lofty views of the mission of the historian, have been able 
 to induce him to give any intimation to his reader that the 
 authenticity of this incredible narrative of Paris was ever 
 questioned. On the contrary, as with the casket-letters, 
 Paris is so interwoven with Froude in the text that the 
 reader nnist be specially attentive if he wishes to distinguish 
 one from the other. 
 
 If Mary Stuart was guilty as charged, and Paris had the 
 knowledge of her guilt as he is made to state it in his second 
 deposition, the shocking fact of the participation of a wife, 
 and that wife a queen, in the murder of her husband, would 
 naturally have been the salient feature of his first depo- 
 sition. And yet in that deposition, in which he appears 
 to have told his story in his own way, he says nothing to 
 implicate the Queen. The second deposition is taken on 
 interrogatories, and not only makes the strongest possible 
 case against the Queen,^ but strongly implicates Maitland, 
 
 1 As, for instance, Paris is supposed to be sent by Bothwell to the Queen 
 with this message which certainly' has the merit of perfect freedom from 
 ambiguity: "Madame, Mons. Bothwell has ordered me to brj.ng him the 
 
164 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Huntly, Argyll, and others who, by a singular coincidence, 
 had lately broken with Murray and gone over to the Queen. 
 This deposition is dated August 10, 1569, more than six 
 months after the Westminster conference, and although it 
 purports to have been taken in presence of Buchanan, he 
 says not a word concerning it in his " Detection." In fact, 
 neither he nor Cecil dared bring it forward. The matter 
 of the deposition was too improbable to impose on any one ; 
 the form showed fraud, and the dates were at variance with 
 themselves and those of Murray's journal. Thus, Paris 
 says he accompanied the Queen to Glasgow, remained 
 " two days there," when the Queen sent him to Edinburgh 
 with a letter to Bothwell. But here Mr. Froude flatly con- 
 tradicts his own witness. He makes Paris arrive at Glas- 
 gow Friday, January 25th, and sends him off with the letter 
 the next morning (Saturday 26th). And now comes " the 
 stainless," who contradicts them both. He deposited with 
 the Commissioners at Westminster his own journal, or 
 diary of events in Scotland, from the birth of the prince to 
 the Battle of Langside, to be used as documentary evidence 
 in the case. According to the diary, Mary arrived at Glas- 
 gow Thursday f 23d), and left on Monday (27th). " In this 
 time she wrote her bylle and other letters to Bothwell." 
 
 But the dates fixed by the first Glasgow letter throw all 
 the foregoing dates into a hopeless muddle. Mr. Froude 
 makes the Queen begin her letter on Friday and send it 
 off on Saturday morning, — Paris reaching Edinburgh Sat- 
 urday night, fifty miles in dead of winter (viii. 371) ; but 
 the letter itself would show that it was not begun until 
 Saturday if, as Mr. Froude has it, she arrived on Friday. 
 It contains these expressions in the first part of the letter : 
 " The King sent for Joachim yesterday" and " he confessed 
 
 keys of your room ; he wishes to arrange something there, that is, to blow 
 up the King with gunpowder." Thus Bothwell and the Queen form a 
 secret plan to murder Darnley, and, lest the trifle might slip their memories, 
 interchange messages by servants to remind each other of the little arrange- 
 ment! 
 
- DEPOSITION- OF PARIS. 
 
 165 
 
 it, but it was the morning after my coming." Then at the 
 close of the first half : " Send you good rest, as I go to 
 seek mine, till to-niorrow in the morning, when I will end 
 my bylle ; " and at the end of the second part, " I had 
 yesternight no paper." This brings the completion of the 
 letter to Sunday afternoon, when, as we have seen, Mr. 
 Froude's Paris has it delivered the day previous in Edin- 
 burgh, while the second letter, dated " this Saturday morn- 
 ing," is already written and dispatched by Beaton the 
 previous day. Mr. Froude's Paris delivers his letter to 
 Bothwell on Simday, waits for the reply, and " rode back 
 through the night to his mistress " — fifty miles in one 
 winter's night ! But here Mr. Froude is utterly crushed 
 out by an authority he dare not question — Murray's 
 diary : — 
 
 January 24th. Bothwell " took journey towards Liddes- 
 dale," — a distance of seventy miles. 
 
 January iWi (Tuesday). " Earl Bothwell came back 
 from Liddesdale ; " so that, according to Mr. Froude, Paris 
 delivered a letter to Bothwell at Edinburg on Sunday, 
 when, if he will permit us to take Murray's word, Both- 
 well was seventy miles away. 
 
 The exposure of irreconcilable inconsistencies such as 
 these could be continued indefinitely. It was its flagrant 
 contradiction of Murray's diary that mainly prevented the 
 use of the Paris deposition. 
 
 It may now be looked upon as clearly ascertained, that 
 although the explosion is said to have been caused solely 
 by the powder placed by Bothwell's men, yet, unknown to 
 Bothwell, and before Darnley came to Kirk o' Field, the 
 foundation walls were undermined, and, in the language of 
 the indictment against Morton, the powder was placed by 
 him and his accomplices " under the ground, and angular 
 stones, and within the vaults, in low and dark parts and 
 places thereof to that effect." Did Mary Stuart have this 
 powder thus placed, and then leave Holy rood to go there 
 and sleep directly over it several nights in succession ? 
 
166 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 The explosion was terrific, and the foundation stones, of 
 enormous size and weight, were blown into the air ; but 
 certainly not by Bothwell's powder, which was in the story 
 .over the cellar. 
 
 It is also clear from the evidence that Darnley and his 
 servant (Taylor) were not killed by the explosion, but were 
 strangled or hurked^ and carried to the spot in the orchard 
 — eighty yards from the house — where they were found 
 without trace of burn, smoke, or contusion upon them. 
 Nor are these facts at all disturbed by the belief of Both- 
 well's men (Hey and Hepburn) that they blew up the house 
 with Darnley in it.^ There was plot, inner plot, and side 
 plot, — with, probably, a branch plot never clearly revealed, 
 and indicated only by the appearance of Ker of Faudonside,^ 
 who rode hard from the English Border at the risk of his 
 life in order to be present that night. He is the man who 
 at the Riccio nuirder drew a pistol on the Queen. Was 
 he too an accomplice of ISIary Stuart ? The clumsy Both- 
 well was thrust forward by his sharper fellow-conspirators. 
 The mine placed by Morton's agent, Douglass, Maitland, 
 and the two Balfours (one of whom owned the house), apd 
 of which Bothwell was kept in ignorance, was to make sure 
 work of both Darnley and the Queen, and explains the 
 warning ^ that reached Mary from Paris a few hours after 
 the catastrophe.'* , 
 
 The side plot was that carried into execution by the 
 Archibald Douglass party. Douglass was the man seen in 
 armor, silk cloak, and velvet slippers, one of which he lost 
 
 1 " He knew nothing but that Darnley was blown into the air, for he was 
 handled with no man's hand that he saw." — Hepburn's Declavdiion. 
 
 2 " Sir Andrew Carr with others was on horseback near unto the place 
 for aid to the cruel enterprise if need had been,"' writes Drury from the 
 Border. 
 
 3 Ante, p. 154-. 
 
 4 For tiie mine it is clearly shown that James Balfour furnished sixty 
 pounds of powder (which he paid for in oil), and Archibald Douglass a bar- 
 rel of powder. 
 
HOW DARNLEY WAS KILLED. 
 
 167 
 
 on the oround. This was the band in whose hands " the 
 king was long of dying, and to his strength made debate 
 for life." (Drury to Cecil.) These were the men to whom 
 were addressed the words heard by some women dwelling 
 near the garden : " Ah, my kinsmen, have mercy on me 
 for love of Him who had mercy on us all." Archibald 
 Douglass was a blood-kinsman of Darnley, and Morton 
 on his trial stated, " Mr. Archibald then after the deed was 
 done, shewed me that he was at the deed-doing." All the 
 contemporary evidence overwhelmingly bears out this ver- 
 sion of Darnley's death. " He was strangled." Melville 
 asserts it. Knox, who had means of knowing, believed it. 
 Herries details it, and Drury states it under circumstances 
 going to show that he had his information from Murray. 
 It is true that Buchanan also asserts it, but his testimony 
 is only of importance in so far as it is corroborated by some 
 credible witness. Great efforts were made by the chief 
 conspirators to suppress all intelligence as to the real man- 
 ner of Darnley's death, in order to accumulate suspicion 
 directly on Bothwell and indirectly on the Queen ; and Mr. 
 Froude is content with Murray's statement : " Some said 
 that they were smothered in their sleep — some say that 
 they were caught and strangled." 
 
 The murderers secured Darnley's papers, and among 
 them the letter referred to by Murray in his diary as written 
 by the Queen ^ to Darnley, February 7. Mr. Caird ^ states 
 
 1 " She confronted the king and my Lord of Holvruindhouse conforme to 
 her letter written the nycht before." Mr. Froude describes Robert Stuart 
 as '* Abbot of St. Cross " — translating Ste. Croix by St. Cross, instead of 
 Holyrood. 
 
 2 Mary Stuart. Her Guilt or Innocence. An Inquiry into the Secret 
 History of her Times. By Alexander Mcl^eel Caird. Edinliurgh : 1869. 
 Mr. Caird's work does not undertake to recount the life of Mary Stuart, 
 but is mainly occupied with examination of the questions involved in the 
 murder of Darnley and the marriage with Bothwell. The Preface to his 
 second edition exposes several of Mr. Froude's misstatements, and seriously 
 damages his reputation as a historian. The work is written with spirit and 
 an evident faraiharity with the authorities. It is a most valuable historical 
 contribution. 
 
168 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 good reasons for believing the letter commencing J^aye 
 veille plus tard^ etc., to be the one then written to Darnley. 
 It is the same in which she says, " Like a bird escaped 
 from the cage, or the dove without its mate, I shall remain 
 alone to lament," etc., of which the forgers impudently made 
 in the copy presented at York, " Mak gude watch. If the 
 bird escape out of the cage," etc. — claiming that the cau- 
 tion was addressed by Mary to Bothwell concerning Darn- 
 ley. 
 
 In addition to the motives of revenge for Darnley's be- 
 trayal of his associates in the Riccio murder, and of impa- 
 tience at the overbearing insolence of " a young fool and 
 proud tyrant," as expressed in the bond of the nobility seen 
 by Ormiston, the principal lords, Murray, Mai tl and, and 
 others, had the more powerful incentive of removing him as 
 the main obstacle to the confirmation of the valuable grants 
 of crown lands bestowed upon them (Murray most of all) 
 by the Queen, which by law she might yet revoke before 
 reaching the age of twenty-five, and which, had Darnley 
 lived, she certainly would have revoked. We shall see 
 Killigrew come up from London to " inquire into the truth," 
 and hear these very men, with Murray at their head, tell 
 him " there are great suspicions but no proof," when they 
 personally knew every man engaged in the murder. Mur- 
 ray tells De Silva (ix. 37) that there were from thirty to 
 forty persons concerned in it. For nine months, Murray 
 had been the Queen's Prime Minister and principal reli- 
 ance in executive matters, and, as it was then phrased, " had 
 the whole guiding of the Queen and her realm." For nine 
 months he had been in constant attendance at court ; but 
 only a few hours before the murder suddenly leaves, in spite 
 of Mary's urgent request that he should remain for an im- 
 portant diplomatic reception. Being gone, he refuses to 
 return, although repeatedly entreated thereto. Mr. Froude 
 reluctantly admits (ix. 35) : — 
 
 " It is unlikely that he should have been entirely ignorant of a 
 
DYING DEPOSITIONS. 
 
 169 
 
 conspiracy to wliicli the whole court in some degree were parties. 
 His departure from Edinbm'gh on the morning of the murder sug- 
 gests that he was aware that some dark deed was intended, which 
 he could not prevent," 
 
 Murray's absence from Edinburgh generally coincided 
 with some catastrophe. " Perhaps " he knew Darnley was * 
 to be murdered. He was, we are assured, unfortunately 
 " unable to interfere." The Queen's brother, the Prime 
 Minister, the most powerful noble, the most influential man 
 in all Scotland — " unable to interfere " to prevent a delib- 
 erate murder ! Not afraid, take notice, but unable. Mr. 
 Froude is right ; Murray luas unable to interfere, for he was 
 banded with Morton, Maitland, Bothwell, and the rest to 
 take Darnley's life. 
 
 The assertion (viii. 361) that " the dying depositions of 
 the instruments of the crime taken on the steps of the 
 scaffold," support the accusation against Mary Stuart, is, 
 if possible, still more unfortunate than the accompanying 
 statement of " keenest inquiry " into the genuineness of 
 the casket-letters. The " keenest inquiry " was no inquiry 
 worth the name. As to dying depositions, let us see. We 
 find — on the best authority, that of Drury (Murray ?) — 
 Captain Cullen designated as one who notoriously " revealed 
 the whole circumstances'* We have seen that after Both- 
 well was a fugitive and the Queen a prisoner. Captain Cul- 
 len was killed in his dungeon and his confession suppressed 
 by Morton and Maitland. But at that time, it may be 
 urged, Murray had not returned from France. Later, all 
 powerful as Regent, we shall doubtless see him arrest and 
 punish the murderers. But Cecil's information to his friend 
 the English Ambassador at Paris, as to what Murray was 
 about when he went to Edinburgh to meet Killigrew, just 
 after Darnley's death, accurately prefigures his course : 
 " Morton, Murray, and others mean to be at Edinburgh 
 very shortly, as they pretend to search out the malefactor J' ^ 
 . 1 See Appendix No. 6. 
 
170 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Cullen being put out of the way, let us inquire as to the 
 fate of the other prisoners. With indecent haste, Murray 
 caused Dalgleish, Powrie, Hay, and Hepburn to be tried, 
 convicted, and executed on the same day. Dalgleish was 
 afterwards said to have been the bearer of the famous sil- 
 ver casket. On the scaffold Hay and Hepburn publicly 
 accused as parties to the murder several friends of Murray, 
 and they affirmed that the Queen to their knowledge knew 
 nothing of the plot.'^ All these men had been in prison for 
 from three to six months before their execution. They 
 were known to have accused the leading lords in their con- 
 fessions, but these confessions were in part suppressed, and 
 only such portions produced by Murray as made no men- 
 tion of his friends and accused Both well alone. The " Di- 
 urnal of Occurrents," contemporary Puritan authority, re- 
 cords that John Hay confessed before the whole people that 
 a bond for the King's murder was made by Bothwell, iffunt- 
 ly, Argyll, Maitland, and Balfour, " with divers other nobles 
 of this realm." And, adds the chronicler, all these nobles 
 but Bothwell being then in Edinburgh, " incontinently they 
 departed therefrom, which makes the charge against them 
 the more probable." Leslie, Bishop of Ross, told Murray 
 and his confederates, — 
 
 " We can tell you that John Hay, that Powry, that Dalgleish, 
 and last of all that Paris, all being put to death for this crime, 
 took God to record at the time of their death, that this murder 
 was by your counsel, invention, and drift committed. Who also 
 declared that they never knew the Queen to be participant or 
 aware thereof." 
 
 This challenge was published by Leslie in his " Defence 
 of Queen Mary's Honour" in 1671 ; and Bishop Keith very 
 forcibly remarks that as this was before Buchanan began 
 
 1 We are aware that Hepburn is claimed to have told Crawford that the 
 Queen was implicated, but this rests on Crawford's verbal statement, while 
 Hepburn's deposition, taken by those most anxious to incriminate the Queen, 
 contains not a word against her. 
 
DYING DECLARATIONS. 
 
 171 
 
 to write his history of Scotland, it might have been ex- 
 pected he should take some notice of this bold affirmation 
 as to declarations made on the scaffold by dying witnesses 
 of the Queen's innocence, " and have obtained proper cre- 
 dentials from persons then alive, and present at the execu- 
 tion, for silencing the Bishop of Ross." 
 
 " But of this, no word drops from him at all ; nay, which is not 
 a little observable, he does. not in the least fortify his own narra- 
 tion by the testimony of this Frenchman (Paris), though he had 
 been at pains in his wicked ' Detection ' to take together all 
 such reports as he thought would any way contribute to stain 
 the Queen." i 
 
 Camden in his " Annals " also states the fact of the dying 
 declarations of these witnesses as to the innocence of the 
 Queen. To the same effect also is the contemporary au- 
 thority of the declaration made at the convention of Scotch 
 nobles in September, 1568, in which they charge the rebel 
 lords with offering remission of the crime of which they 
 had convicted sundry persons, " if they would say that her 
 Grace was guilty thereof. . . . they (the lords) were guilty 
 thereof only, as was deponed by them who suffered death 
 therefor ; who declared at all times the Queen our Sover- 
 eign to be innocent thereof." This was the declaration of 
 seven earls, twelve lords, and sixteen prelates. 
 
 1 Keith, vol. ii. p. 515. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 MURRAY AND BOTHWELL. 
 
 " To draw co elusions is the business of the reader; it has been mine to 
 search for the facts." — Froude's History of England, vol. iv. p. 485. 
 
 Early in March, 1567, Elizabeth sent an ambassador 
 (Killigrew) down to Scotland to carry out certain instruc- 
 tions and " to inquire into the truth " concerning Darnley's 
 murder ; and we ask the reader's special attention to the 
 account given by Mr. Froude of Killigrew's report of his 
 mission. It is one of the most remarkable of his per- 
 versions. A bolder piece of invention, a more reckless 
 tampering with a historical document, is rarely met with. 
 On the very day of his arrival at Edinburgh, Killigrew was 
 invited to dinner by Murray, and the distinguished guests 
 bidden to meet him were Huntly, Argyll, Bothwell, and 
 Maitland, — all of them among the murderers of Darnley, 
 He was thus in a fair way " to inquire into the truth." 
 
 Killigrew himself states the facts of the invitation and 
 the dinner, with the names of the lords he there met, in 
 a letter to Cecil of March 8. Now, to Mr. Froude, these 
 statements of Killigrew must be very unpleasant. 
 
 What ? The " stainless " Murray, with full knowledge 
 that Bothwell was Darnley's murderer, and that Huntly, 
 Argyll, and Maitland were in the conspiracy, selecting 
 these men as the choice and flower of the Scotch no- 
 bility, to honor by their presence the ambassador of the 
 Queen of England, " sent down to Scotland to inquire into 
 the truth " of the murder? The " pious " Murray extend- 
 
Murray's dinner party. 
 
 173 
 
 ing the right hand of fellowship to assassins?^ It must 
 not be. The scandal must be suppressed. Killigrew was 
 rash to write such a letter. And our historian has the au- 
 dacity to tell his readers (ix. 24) — referring to this very 
 letter of Killigrew as his authority — ''•He ivas entertained 
 at dinner by the clique who had attended her (Mary) to Seton." 
 A few pages earlier, Mary Stuart is described "on the 
 morning of the 16th," going to Seton "attended by Both- 
 well, Iluntly, Argyll, Maitlaud, Lords Fleming, Livfhgston, 
 and a hundred other gentlemen ; " ^ so that the reader must 
 find out for himself who composed the clique. The 
 clique " entertained Killigrew ! Not a whisper of Mur- 
 ray. The dinner passes off, but Murray who gave it and 
 presided at it is not visible in our historian's pages. Mr. 
 Froude goes on with his travestie of Killigrew's letter, and 
 hereupon follows a wonderful version of Killigrew's audi- 
 ence with the Queen, and at the end of the next page, with 
 a decided air of " no connection with the establishment 
 over the way," the historian informs us — casually, as it 
 were — " One other person of note he saw, and that was the 
 Earl of Murray.'" The earl could not possibly leave his 
 wife, in compliance with Mary Stuart's repeated entreaties 
 to come to Edinburgh, but we find that he hastens thither 
 instantly when advised of Killigrew's coming. Murray's 
 master, Cecil, in a letter written just before Killigrew's ar- 
 rival, throws an interesting light on these movements. He 
 writes to the English Ambassador at Paris : " Morton, Mur- 
 ray, and others mean to be at P^dinburgh very shortly, as 
 they pretend to search out the malefactor." ^ We give Sir 
 
 1 This on Mr. Froude's theory that Murray himself was not one of the 
 principals in the murder. At the very least they had his assurance " that 
 he would look through his fingers and behold their doings, saying nothing 
 to the same." 
 
 2 Mr. Froude is here flatly contradicted by authority he cannot question: 
 " Upon the sixteentli day of the said month of February, our Sovereign 
 Lady past from Holyrood House to Seton, and left the Edrls of Huntley and 
 Bothivell in the Palace of Ilolyrood.^^ — Diurnal of Occurrents. 
 
 8 Original in English Record Office, Cabala, 126. 
 
174 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Henry Killigrew's letter of March 8, and by its side Mr. 
 Fronde's account of the contents of the letter. The pas- 
 sages in Mr. Fronde's version which he says Killigrew 
 wrote, but which cannot he found in Killigrew's letter, are 
 given in italics : — 
 
 Mr. Froude's Account of 
 THE Contexts of Sir H. 
 Killigrew's Letter to 
 Cecil of March 8, 1567. 
 (ix. 24, 25.) 
 Killigrew reached Edin- 
 burgh on the 8 th of March, one 
 day behind her. He was enter- 
 tained at a dinner hy the clique 
 who had attended her to Seton, 
 and in the afternoon was ad- 
 mitted to a brief audience. The 
 windows were half-closed, the 
 rooms were darkened, and in 
 the profound gloom the English 
 Ambassador was unable to see 
 the Queen's face, but by her 
 words she seemed ' very dole- 
 fid.' She expressed herself 
 warmly grateful for Elizabeth's 
 kindness, but said little of the mur- 
 der, and turned the conversation 
 chiefly on politics. She spoke of 
 Ireland, and undertook to prevent 
 her subjects from giving trouble 
 there ; she repeated her icilling- 
 ness to ratify the treaty of Leith, 
 and professed herself generally 
 anxious to meet Elizabeth's wishes. 
 
 " With these general expres- 
 sions, she perhaps hoped that Kil- 
 ligrew would have been contented, 
 but on one point his orders icere 
 positive. He represented to her 
 
 Sir H. Killigrew's Letter 
 to Cecil, March 8, 1567. 
 (In Chalmers, i. 324, London 
 ed. ; American edition, Phil- 
 adelphia, 1822, p. 154.) 
 Sir : Although I trust, to be 
 shortly with you, yet, have I 
 thought good to write some- 
 what, in the mean time. I had 
 no audience before this day (8th 
 March, 1566-7), which was after 
 I had dined, with my Lord of 
 Murray, who was accompanied 
 with my Lord Chancellor (Hmit- 
 ley), the Earl of Argyle, my 
 Lord Bothwell, and the Laird of 
 Lidington (Secretary Maitland). 
 
 " I found the queen's majesty, 
 in a dark chamber, so as I could 
 not see her face; but by her 
 words she seemed very dolefid ; 
 and did accept my sovereign's 
 letters, and message, in very 
 thankful manner; as I trust, 
 will appear, by her answer, 
 which I hope to receive, within 
 these two days ; and I think 
 will tend to satisfy the queen's 
 majesty, as much as this present 
 can permit, not only for the 
 matters of Ireland, but also the 
 treaty of Leith. 
 
 " Touching news, I can write 
 no more, than is written by 
 
KILLIGREW'S LETTER. 
 
 175 
 
 the unanimity with ichich Both- others. I find great suspicions, 
 
 well had been fastened upon as and no proof, nor appearance of 
 
 one of the murderers of the King ; apprehension, yet, aUhough I 
 
 and before he took his leave he am made believe, I shall ere I 
 
 succeeded in extorting a promise depart hence, receive some in- 
 
 from her that the earl should he formation. 
 
 put upon his trial. His staj in " My Lord of Lennox hath 
 
 Scotland was to he hrief and the sent, to request the queen, that 
 
 little which he trusted himself to such persons, as were named, in 
 
 write was extremely guarded, the bill [placard] should be 
 
 The people, he rapidly found, taken. Answer is made him, 
 
 were in no humor to entertain that if he, or any, will stand to 
 
 questions of church policy. The the accusation of any of them, 
 
 mind of every one was riveted on it shall be done ; but, not by 
 
 the one all-ahsorhing subject. As virtue of the bill, or his request, 
 
 to the perpetrators, he said there I look to hear what will come 
 
 were ' great suspicions, but no from him to that point. His 
 
 proof,' and so far ' no one had lordship is among his friends, 
 
 been apprehended.^ ' He saw no beside Glasgow, where he think- 
 
 present appearance of trouble, eth himself safe enough, as a 
 
 but a general misliking among man of his told me. 
 
 the commons and some others " I see no troubles at present, 
 
 which abhorred the detesta- nor appearance thereof ; but a 
 
 ble murder of their king as a general misliking, among the 
 
 shame to the whole nation — commons, and some others, 
 
 the preachers praying openly which the detestable murder of 
 
 that God would please both to their king, a shame, as they 
 
 reveal and revenge — exhort- suppose, to the whole nation, 
 
 ing all men to prayer and re- " The preachers say, and 
 
 pentance.' " pray, openly to God, that it will 
 
 please him, both to reveal, and 
 revenge it; exhorting all men 
 to prayer and repentance. 
 " Your most bounden to obey, 
 " H. Kyllygrew." 
 
 Mr. Froude's remark (ix. 26) that " We are stepping 
 into a region where the very atmosphere is saturated with 
 falsehood," is out of place, and comes too late by several 
 volumes. 
 
176 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Our historian is shocked (ix. 9) at Mary's neglect of 
 " forty days' sechision, the usual period prescribed for royal 
 mourning." 
 
 Prescribed where ? In France, for the widow of a reign- 
 ing king. Not in Scotland, even for a king, much less a 
 king consort. " You mocked and jested among your- 
 selves," said honest Adam Blackwood to the Froudes of 
 his day, " at the keeping of her closet, at her candle, at her 
 black mourning attire ; now you blame her that she took 
 not long enough in performing those duties which you hold 
 in conscience to be superstitious." Mary fulfilled these du- 
 ties shut up at Edinburgh Castle, in a close room hung with 
 black and lighted by tapers, as long as it was allowed by 
 her physicians. On their representations, the Privy Coun- 
 cil urged her " to repair to some good, open, and whole- 
 some air," and she accordingly went to Seton Castle, accom- 
 panied by a numerous retinue, in which, as a matter of 
 course, Mr. Froude gives Bothwell a prominent position. 
 But Bothwell, as we have seen, did not go to Seton at all. 
 Buchanan says " she went daily into the fields among ruf- 
 fians," and Mr. Froude, whose inspiration is Buchanan, 
 having long in advan'ce told the old exploded " butts " 
 story, says, " the days were spent in hunting and shooting," 
 and the Queen " was amusing herself with her cavaliers at 
 Seton." He quotes Drury's letter to Cecil of March 29, 
 but is unable to see in it this passage concerning the 
 Queen : — 
 
 " She hath been for the most part either melanclioly or sickly 
 ever since, especially this week; upon Tuesday and Wednesday 
 
 often swooned The Queen breaketh very much. Upon 
 
 Sunday last divers were witness, for there was mass of Requiem 
 
 and Dirge for the King's soul The Queen went on Friday 
 
 night, with two gentlewomen with her, into the chapel about 
 eleven, and tarried there till near unto three of the clock." 
 
 It was at this time that Mary was more anxious than 
 ever to return to the country where she had spent her 
 
THE STAINLESS. 
 
 177 
 
 happy youth. So fiir from desiring to remain in Scotland 
 with Bothwell, as her enemies say, she made the most 
 strenuous exertions to arrange for her retirement to France. 
 And they were the more strenuous because of their secrecy. 
 We know it only from an independent source. The Span- 
 ish Ambassador at Paris advises the King of Spain 
 (March 15, 1567) : "The Queen of Scotland is so much 
 alarmed that I understand she is anxious to come to this 
 kingdom, to live in a town assigned to her for her dower ; 
 but here they are opposed to her coming, and do their ut- 
 most to induce her to remain where she is." " But here 
 they are opposed to her coming^'' shows us plainly that there 
 now is, in reality, a " court of Catherine de Medicis." 
 
 Will Mr. Froude, or some one for him, explain how it is 
 that Murray, the model Christian man, the " noble gentle- 
 man of stainless honor," could stand by and look quietly 
 on at the preparations for Darnley's murder progressing be- 
 fore his very eyes ? He was the first officer next the crown 
 and the most influential man in the kingdom. But he 
 lifted not a finger, spoke not a word.^ He could have 
 warned Mary, he could have warned Darnley. But when 
 Darnley was warned by Robert Douglass, and a fierce quar- 
 rel ensued, Murray, sent for and appealed to by the Queen, 
 was still mute. There is no circumstance going more forci- 
 bly to show Mary's utter unconsciousness of the plot than 
 her conduct in this matter. She instantly calls in Murray. 
 And when the crime was consummated, knowing that the 
 Queen herself was the prize coveted by Bothwell and 
 awarded him by the nobles, as his share of the plunder, 
 could this brother find in his heart no word of kind warn- 
 ing if he believed his sister innocent, or of stern rebuke 
 if he thought her guilty ? In spite of Mary's earnest en- 
 treaties, tears, and prayers, he left Scotland (April 9) just 
 
 1 "Ilneveult n'ayder ne nuyre; niais c'est tout iing." " The Earl of 
 Murray will neither help nor hinder us; but it is all one." — Fir&t Deposi- 
 tion of Paris. 
 
 12 
 
178 MARY quep:n of scots. 
 
 before the trial of Bothwell. Pretending to go to France, 
 he went straight to England. Immediately on his arrival at 
 Berwick, Drury's correspondence with Cecil becomes more 
 than ordinarily malignant, and Mr. Froude himself tells us 
 of his insinuations to De Silva against the Queen. These 
 were his outward acts. But as a strange commentary upon 
 them, the revelations of later years have brought us his 
 " last will and testament," privately executed by him before 
 leaving Scotland. It is dated April 3, 1567, just six days 
 before his departure, and appoints the Queen, Mary Stuart, 
 to the charge of his only child, and that child a daughter, 
 as " overswoman to see all things be handled and ruled for 
 the well-being of my said daughter." 
 
 Do men usually select a murderess and an adulteress to 
 take charge of an only daughter when they are dead and 
 gone ? 
 
 THE marshal's REPORT. 
 
 One of our author's most elaborately finished and sensa- 
 tional pictures is the scene (ix. 42-44) where he describes 
 Both well's departure from Holy rood to be tried for the 
 murder of Darnley. The reader's especial attention to it is 
 requested. As the authority for this recital, we are referred 
 to the report made by a messenger charged with the de- 
 livery of a missive from Queen Elizabeth to Queen Mary ; 
 and we are assured by Mr. Froude that " this officer has 
 preserved, as in a photograph, the singular scene of lohich he 
 was a witness." A certain importance is properly attached 
 to the official missive of a subordinate to a superior officer, 
 to whom he is responsible for the truth of his statements, 
 and, under these circumstances, the report made by Drury's 
 messenger naturally carries great weight with it. Un- 
 fortunately, though, our historian has chosen to substitute 
 a sketch of his own for what he calls the officer's photo- 
 graph. Passing over some of its minor misstatements, we 
 come to " presently the earl [Bothwell] appeared, walking 
 with Maitland." The beggarly Scots " fell back as Both- 
 
THE marshal's REPORT. 
 
 179 
 
 well approached, and he [the oilicer, Provost-marshal of 
 Berwick] presented his letter." And now we are made to 
 see what was passing in Bothwell's mind : " The earl per- 
 haps felt that too absolute a defiance might be unwise. 
 He took it [notice, Bothwell took it] and went back into 
 the palace, but presently returned, and said [Bothwell said] 
 that the Queen was still sleeping ; it would be given to her 
 when the work of the morning was over." This narrative 
 forces upon the reader the inference that Bothwell has at 
 once exclusive charge of the Queen's affairs, and the entree 
 to her sleeping apartments. 
 
 We have long ceased to be astonished at any historical 
 outrage from the pen of our author, and we are reluctantly 
 compelled to believe that there is no perversion too shock- 
 ing, no misrepresentation too bold, for one who could man- 
 ipulate, as does Mr. Froude, the passage under considera- 
 tion. The marshal, in his official report, made through 
 Drury, states distinctly that Maitland (not Bothwell) de- 
 manded the letter, Maitland (not Bothwell) took the letter, 
 Maitland (not Bothwell) returned, and Maitland (not Both- 
 well) gave him the answer he reports, but which, of course, 
 is not the answer stated by Mr. Froude, who has " not yet 
 succeeded in grasping the nature of inverted commas." Of 
 the groom, the horse, the Queen at the open window, the 
 farewell nod to Bothwell, there is not a syllable in the 
 marshal's statement. 
 
 Here is the text of the official report, beginning at the 
 point where Maitland and Bothwell made their appear- 
 ance : — 
 
 " At the which, all the lords and gentlemen mounted on horse- 
 back, till that Lethington (Maitland) came to him demanding 
 him the letter, which he delivered. The Earl of Bothwell and 
 he returned to the Queen, and stayed there within half an hour, 
 the whole troop of lords and gentlemen, still on horseback attend- 
 ing for his coming. Lethington seemed willing to have passed 
 by the provost without any speech, but he pressed toward him, 
 
180 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 and asked him if the Queen's majesty had perused the letter, and 
 what service it would please her majesty to command him back 
 again. He answered that as yet the Queen was sleeping, and 
 therefore had not delivered the letter, and that there would not 
 be any meet time for it till after the assize, wherefore he willed 
 him to attend. So, giving place to the throng of people that 
 passed, which was great, and, by the estimation of men of good 
 judgment, above four thousand gentlemen besides others, the Earl 
 Bothwell passed with a merry and lusty cheer, attended on with 
 all the soldiers, being two hundred, all harkebusiers, to the 
 Tolbooth." (Chalmers, vol. iii. p. 70.) 
 
 Our historian changes the marshal's " four thousand 
 gentlemen" into "four thousand ruffians," thus concealing 
 the fact that at this time Bothwell's cause was also the 
 cause of Murray, Maitland, and of the great body of the 
 nobility — his confederates in the Darnley murder, and who 
 formed the court and jury about to try him for the crime of 
 which he and they were equally guilty.^ It is almost cer- 
 tain that the Queen never received the missive from Eliza- 
 beth, and did not at the time, if ever, know of the arrival 
 of the messenger who brought it.^ She never would, even 
 as a matter of policy, have countenanced the incivility to 
 which the marshal was subjected. Although Mr. Froude 
 has a loop-hole of escape in adding to his reference note, 
 Drury to Cecily April'' the words, " Border MSS. printed 
 in the appendix to the ninth volume of Mr. Tytler's ' Hist, of 
 Scotland,' " he has nevertheless, in his text, fully impressed 
 the reader with the belief that he is perusing the recital 
 of Elizabeth's messenger. The horse, the Queen at the 
 window, the friendly nod, etc., are found in a fragment with- 
 out date and of anonymous authorship, forwarded by Drury, 
 
 1 "The voluntary escort of four thousand gentlemep to his trial," says 
 Aytoun, " is an unequivocal proof of the strength of his (Bothwell's) position 
 at the time." 
 
 2 Mr. Burton has the fairness to state that " On the day of the trial a 
 messenger arrived with a letter from Queen Elizabeth to Queen Mary, but 
 in the confusion and excitement of the event of the day it is not known 
 whether she received it." 
 
bothwell's trial. 
 
 181 
 
 whose business it was to gather and send to Cecil every 
 rumor, report, and scandal concerning the Scottish court. 
 Tytler gives it in an appendix as a portion of " disjointed 
 pieces of news sent by some one of the many spies from 
 whom Drury received information." Here it is : — 
 
 " The Queen sent a token and message to Bodwell, being at 
 assize." " Bodwell rode upon the courser that was the king's, 
 
 when he rode to the assyse Ledington and others told the 
 
 under-marshal that the Queen was asleep, when he himself saw her 
 looking out of a window, showed him by one of La Crok's ser- 
 vants, and Ledington's wife with her ; and Bodwell after he was 
 on horseback looked up, and she gave him a friendly nod for a 
 farewell." 
 
 What the marshal really saw and heard he officially re- 
 ported, and we must decline accepting scrappy gossip and 
 intangible authority to qualify it. If any such incidents 
 had occurred, we would have heard of them from numer- 
 ous sources. They were too remarkable to have been over- 
 looked, and even Buchanan has no knowledge of them. 
 The story of the " courser that was the king's " resembles 
 Calderwood's stuff as to giving Darnley's old clothes to 
 Bothwell. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to state that the history of the cor- 
 respondence between the Queen and Lennox concerning 
 the trial is elaborately misrepresented. The Queen did 
 promptly all that could have been expected, and the tone 
 of her letters to Lennox was, as ever, dignified, and with 
 far more of kindness and Consideration than he had any 
 right to look for at her hands. If Darnley had had the 
 advantage while living of such counsel as a true father 
 and an honest man might have given him, there would 
 have been no Kirk o' Field explosion, and no trial of Both- 
 well. 
 
 The fact that both Maitland and Morton ^ rode with Both- 
 well to the Tolbooth is concealed. " Four assessors " are 
 
 1 " Mortonio causam ejus sustinente," says Camden. 
 
182 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 mentioned. But " assessors,"' for all the modern reader 
 knows, may mean clerks, whose duty it is to tax costs. It 
 is not explained that these assessors were in fact judges. 
 Mr. Fronde's fear that " one or more of them might prove 
 unmanageable " need excite no alarm. No men in the 
 kingdom were more manageable. They were all of them 
 ^Murray's creatures, — Lord Lindsay (his brother-in-law), 
 Pitcairn, Henry Balnaves, and James Makgill. Lindsay 
 was one of the assassins of Riccio, and was also in the 
 murder conspiracy against Darnley. He is the same Lind- 
 say who afterwards treated the Queen with such personal 
 brutality to obtain her signature. Balnaves was one of the 
 assassins of Cardinal Beaton. Makgill, " a subtle chicaner 
 and inibroiler of the laws," was compromised in the Ric- 
 cio murder, and now enrolled on the English pension list 
 with his master. The last three were tools of Murray, and 
 accompanied him to York with the forged casket-letters. 
 Truly the danger was great that " one or more " of such 
 villains as these should do otherwise than acquit a brother 
 assassin. Caithness was not for an instant doubtful. Mor- 
 ton's excuse for not being present at the trial is misrepre- 
 sented. He sent no such message as " he would Irave been 
 glad to please the Queen." His reason for not being pres- 
 ent at the assize was that the enmity notoriously existing be- 
 tween him and Darnley made it hazardous for him to take 
 part in trial of one accused of his murder ; and his mes- 
 sage was: "Though the King had forgotten his part in 
 respect of nature toward him, yet for that he was his kins- 
 man he would rather pay for the forfeit." Cunningham 
 (Lennox's agent) stated at the trial that he [Lennox] 
 was denied of his friends — that is to say refused by them. 
 For denied, Mr. Froude substitutes denuded, which looks as 
 though he had been forcibly deprived of them, and has a 
 much better effect. 
 
 The historian sneers at the Parliament (ix. 51), " or such 
 packed assemblage as the Queen called by the name," and 
 
THE AINSLIE BOND. 
 
 183 
 
 misrepresents the return of the Himtly estates, which was 
 an act of the merest naked justice. The Parliament was 
 as full as any of that time. According to our historian, it 
 was composed of five prelates, six earls, six other noble- 
 men, and a few commoners. But the official record ^ con- 
 tradicts him, and gives nineteen prelates and abbots, ten 
 earls, one of whom was Morton, sixteen lords, and seven 
 commoners — full as large as any parliament of the period. 
 " Price of the divorce ! " The Queen's promise to Huntly 
 had been made twenty months, and was given six months 
 before Bothwell's marriage to Jane Gordon. Not four, but 
 twenty-four acts were passed. The murderers of Darnley 
 had lost no time in having it assembled, mainly for the 
 purpose of confirming the crown grants which the Queen 
 would otherwise be at liberty to revoke. These grants in- 
 cluded nearly two thirds of all the crown lands. Morton's 
 titles and possessions were not only confirmed to him, but 
 the earldom of Angus with its large estates (Darnley's by 
 right) was given to Morton's nephew, a boy of twelve. 
 Large grants were made to Maitland's father. Argyll was 
 held to have had enough in his wholesale plunder of the 
 Lennox estates, for which, had he lived, Darnley would 
 have held him accountable. And finally, the largest and 
 most elaborately framed Act of all that were passed was one 
 eight columns long as now printed, securing to Murray his 
 earldom and its lands. Murray, thus placed on record by 
 himself, was, through his friends, quite sufficiently present 
 in Edinburgh for the purposes of the Act of Parliament, 
 but not for the Ainslie bond, thinks Mr. Froude. 
 
 1 In Anderson, vol. i. part 2, pp. 113-114. 
 
CHAPTER XYI. 
 
 AINSLIE BOND. — ABDUCTION. MARRIAGE. 
 
 " II est toujours dangereux et souv^ent pu^ril cle vouloir intrepr^ter les 
 sentiments secrets des persounages historiques." — Lanfrey, Bistoire de 
 Napoleon 1. 
 
 Mr. Froude preserves all the apocryphal and suspi- 
 ciously romantic circumstances surrounding the commonly 
 received version of the so-called Ainslie Tavern Supper, 
 and gives us the " wine " which " went round freely/' Both- 
 well's hackbutters " who surrounded the house," etc. Late 
 investigations make any tavern supper in connection with 
 the bond more than doubtful. Parliament had, that very 
 day, ratified to Murray, Morton, and their confederates, 
 their vast grants of crown lands. This was their claimed 
 remuneration for the Darnley murder. Both well was now 
 to receive his, which was the approval by the nobles of his 
 marriage with the Queen. This approval, as well as their 
 pledge to uphold him as innocent of the murder of Darn- 
 ley, they gave him in the most solemn manner. The state- 
 ments concerning the signing of this so-called Ainslie bond 
 made by Bothwell, by Sir James Melville, and by Murray's 
 " Articles," strip the affair of all such features as supper, 
 wine, and hackbutters, and leave it a plain business trans- 
 action. Mr. Froude gives no idea (ix. 52) of the true 
 import and strength of this important document. The 
 " situation " will be made clear to the reader by its atten- 
 tive perusal.^ 
 
 It is claimed that neither Murray nor Morton signed 
 this document. As to Murray tlie case stands thus. In 
 1 See Appendix No. 7. 
 
AINSLIE BOND. 
 
 185 
 
 December, 1568, John Read, a clerk of Buchanan, was 
 sent to Cecil with a copy of the Ainslie bond. The signa- 
 tures were supplied verbally by Read to Cecil, as appears 
 by an entry upon the bond in Cecil's writing.^ Now Read 
 was a creature of Buchanan, who was a creature of Mur- 
 ray, who was a creature of Cecil ; and Murray was then 
 present in London prosecuting his " Articles " against his 
 sister, and this " bond," with Murray's name to it, was used 
 at the conference by Cecil with Murray's knowledge. To 
 this is opposed the fact that at the date of the bond Mur- 
 ray was not in Edinburgh. But he may have signed it be- 
 fore his departure. He was passe maitre in all the art and 
 mystery of the alihi, and always absent at the perpetration 
 of all the great crimes of the day. The alacrity of all the 
 lords to sign the bond could only be accounted for by Mur- 
 ray's approval of it. As to Morton, Cecil says he signed, 
 and the Scotch copy in Paris also has his signature. Mr. 
 Froude says (ix. 53) that he " can be proved distinctly 
 not to have signed." Mr. Fronde's word is, of course, very 
 good, but we prefer to accept Morton's own confession just 
 before death that he did sign it. 
 
 The " supper story " is repeated by Mr. Burton, who, 
 usually positive even unto dogmatism, is here straight- 
 way overcome by a total inability to understand this docu- 
 ment. He leaves it in a mist, saying : " This is an affair 
 which not only lacks sufficient explanation, but scarcely 
 affords material for a plausible theory. Simple coercion 
 will hardly account for it." There is no occasion for plausible 
 theories. Did or did not the earls, bishops, and lords, whose 
 names are appended, sign the bond in question ? Not even 
 
 1 " The names of such of the nobility as subscribed the bond, so far as 
 John Read might remember, of whom I had this copy, being in his own 
 hand, being commonly called in Scotland Aynslie's supper. Earles of Mur- 
 ray', Argyll, Huntley, Cassilis, Morton, Sutherland, Rothes, Glencairn, and 
 Caithness; Lords Boyd, Seton, Sinclair, Sample, Oliphant, Ogiivy, Rosse, 
 Hacat, Carlyle, Herries, Ilume, and Innermeith. Eglinton subscribed not, 
 but slipped away." 
 
186 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Mr. Fronde dare deny it, except to the extent of a little 
 special pleading in favor of one or two of his favorites. 
 This bond plainly tells us who were BothwelFs accomplices 
 in the Darnley murder, and who are accountable for his 
 forcible marriage with the Queen.-^ 
 
 We have not room for extended comment on the " for- 
 eign guard " story, (ix. 11.) It is a piece of elaborate mis- 
 representation. 
 
 At Seton Mary was occupied with the choice of a pro- 
 tector and safe residence for her infant son. She chose 
 the Earl of Mar (John Erskine), who had been her 
 preceptor in her childhood. His wife had already been 
 appointed governess to the Prince, and their residence, 
 Stirling Castle, offered the inducements of salubrity and 
 strength. The child was sent to Stirlino: on the 19th 
 March, in charge of the Earls of Argyll and Huntly. Of 
 these facts no mention is made in the " History," and the 
 reader is left under the impression that the child was taken 
 from its mother, and that its life " was in as great danger 
 as the Queen's honor." To make this statement good, Mr. 
 Fronde thus exposes Mary Stuart, and thinks that the fol- 
 lowing story represents the belief of the day. As a matter 
 of course, the incident is taken out of the famous " Border 
 Correspondence," — and a very pretty story it is. Drury 
 writes to Cecil May 20 : — 
 
 " At the Queen's last being at Stirling, the Prince being 
 brought unto her, she offered to kiss him, but the Prince would 
 not, but put her face away with his hand, and did to his strength 
 scratch her. She took an apple out of her pocket and offered it, 
 but it would not be received by him, but the nurse took it, and to 
 a greyhound bitch having whelps, the apple was thrown. She ate 
 it, and she and the whelps died presently ; a sugar-loaf also for 
 the Prince was brought thither at the same time, and left there 
 for the Prince, but the Earl of Mar keeps the same. It is judged 
 to be very evil compounded." 
 
 1 The Ainslie supper question is exhaustively treated by Professor Ay- 
 toun in his Bothwdl, p. 231. 
 
" HER ONLY BAIRN." 
 
 187 
 
 Although no possible motive can bo assigned for it, it is 
 very clear to Mr. Fronde that Mary Stuart made the jour- 
 ney to Stirling in order to poison her own infant. For 
 those who " believe with their wills," no invention can be 
 too gross if it but calumniate Mary Stuart. Poor Marie 
 Antoinette in after years, as we know, was accused of some- 
 thins: worse than taking the life of her child. The answer 
 of these two Queens, great in their sufferings and grand in 
 their resignation, was, in each case, an eloquent burst of 
 nature and queenly dignity. " The natural love," said Mary 
 Stuart, " which the mother bears to her only bairn is suffi- 
 cient to confound them, and needs no other answer." She 
 afterward added, that all the world knew that the very men 
 who now charged her with this atrocious crime had wronged 
 her son, even before his birth ; for they would have slain 
 him in her womb, although they now pretended in his name 
 to exercise their usurped authority." 
 
 It is claimed by Mary Stuart's enemies that Bothwell's 
 forcible abduction of the Queen was collusive. Three of 
 the forged casket-letters are produced to prove it. These 
 letters are the clumsiest of the forgeries, and are contra- 
 dicted by the portion of the Paris confession which was 
 manufactured to confirm them. Paris is made to deliver 
 a letter to Bothwell the day before it is written. Accord- 
 ing to Paris, Mary sent a letter to Bothwell from Linlith- 
 gow by the Laird of Ormiston. The best testimony on that 
 point would have been that of Ormiston himself; but al- 
 though for months a prisoner he was never questioned on 
 the subject. Again, Mary is made to advise Bothwell what 
 he should say to Lethington, when it is well known that 
 Lethington was then with her as one of her small escort. 
 Again, one of the letters to Bothwell refers to Huntly as 
 his " brother-in-law that was,'' precisely the state of facts 
 when the forger did his work — not stopping to remember 
 that at the date given to the letter Bothwell was not yet 
 divorced from his wife (Iluntly's sister). A few days be- 
 fore the abduction, a letter goes from Drury to Cecil : — 
 
188 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 " Tlie Earl Botliwell hath gathered many of his friends, very 
 well provided, some say to ride into Liddesdale ; but there is feared 
 some other purpose, which he intendeth, much different from that 
 of the Avhich I believe I shortly shall be able to advertise more 
 certainly. He hath furnished Dunbar Castle with all necessary 
 provisions as well of victuals as other things forcible." 
 
 The " things forcible " were cannon and munitions of 
 war to provide for defense if necessary. Thus it appears 
 that Drury down on the Border knew of these preparations 
 of Bothwell to take the Queen to Dunbar, — preparations 
 that must have required time. And yet, according to the 
 forged letters, Mary leaves Edinburgh where Bothwell 
 was, in total ignorance of his plans, and is made to write to 
 him the same day to know what she should do ? Then, to 
 crown all, it was simply an impossibility for a messenger to 
 return with an answer before the encounter took place. 
 Not to speak of the minor discomforts of a long ride to 
 Stirling and illness at Linlithgow, by way of preparation 
 for the twenty miles' ride to Dunbar, there is no conceivable 
 reason for a collusive encounter, if Mary was so madly in 
 love with Bothwell as her enemies represent her. No one 
 regretted Darnley, and there was no obstacle whatever to 
 what is represented as her mad desire. All this must be 
 admitted as true, and her enemies have nothing wherewith 
 to meet it but the suggestion that a sense of shame pre- 
 vented her, when they have all along sought to prove "her 
 dead to shame. " They (the Queen and Bothwell) seemed 
 to fear nothing more than lest their wickedness should be 
 unknown," says Buchanan ; while Mr. Froude describes her 
 as " duped by her own passions, which had dragged her 
 down to the level of a brute." (ix. 44.) Bothwell was le- 
 gally acquitted ; he had the support of men of the highest 
 station and greatest influence, and was recommended by 
 the chief nobility of the realm as a fit person to marry the 
 Queen, with their pledge to aid him thereto. She was free, 
 and had positively nothing to do but accept the advice and 
 
THE ABDUCTION. 
 
 189 
 
 counsel of the bishops, earls, and lords. Instead of this 
 she goes through this absurd farce of being waylaid and 
 carried off. A distinguished Scotch author (Aytoun) may 
 well say : " It is matter of surprise that a story so palpa- 
 bly absurd should ever have received credence." 
 
 Mr. Froude's version of the abduction may be dismissed 
 with slight comment. He represents Mary with a guard 
 of three hundred men. She had no guard whatever but 
 the escort of twelve persons, among whom were Huntly, 
 Lethington, and Melville. He pictures Bothwell with a 
 dozen of his followers instead of a thousand horsemen in 
 mail.^ He makes Mary say — "with singular composure " 
 — of course, " she would have no bloodshed ; her people 
 were outnumbered, and rather than any of them should 
 lose their lives, she would go wherever the Earl of Both- 
 well wished." 
 
 Is it not a pretty speech ? 
 
 Yet hear how ruthlessly Mr. Hosack ruins it : " But this 
 is the speech, not of the Queen of Scots, but of Mr. Froude, 
 who has put it into her mouth for the obvious purpose of 
 leading his readers to conclude that she was an accomplice 
 in the designs of Bothwell." (Page 302.) 
 
 Sir James Melville's account is : — 
 
 " The Earl of Bothwell encountered her with a great com- 
 pany, and took her horse by the bridle, his men took the Earl of 
 Huntley, Secretary Maitland, and me, and carried us captives to 
 Dunbar. There the Earl of B. boasted he would marry the 
 Queen, who would or wlio would not ; yea, lohetJier she would herself 
 or not." 
 
 The Queen's ladies were not allowed to remain with her ; 
 her attendants were dismissed, and she was placed in charge 
 of Bothwell's sister. Although our readers are familiar 
 with the horrible story, the best account of it is, after all, 
 Mary's own simple and modest narrative of the abominable 
 
 1 Driiry says 1,000. Mignet the same; Burton says, " Bothwell took with 
 him 800 spearsmen." 
 
190 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 outrage. It is found in Keith, vol. ii. p. 599. After referring 
 to the great services and unshaken loyalty of Bothwell, she 
 says that, previous to her visit to Stirling, he had made cer- 
 tain advances, " to which her answer was in no dej^ree 
 correspondent to his desire ; " but that, having previously 
 obtained the consent of the nobility to the marriage, he did 
 not hesitate to carry her off to the Castle of Dunbar ; that 
 when she reproached him for his audacity, he implored her 
 to attribute his conduct to the ardor of his affection, and 
 to condescend to accept him as her husband, in accordance 
 with the wishes of his brother nobles ; that he then, to her 
 amazement, laid before her the bond of the nobility, de- 
 claring that it was essential to the peace and welfare of the 
 kingdom that she should choose another husband, and that, 
 of all her subjects, Bothwell was best deserving of that 
 honor ; that she still, notwithstanding, refused to listen to 
 his proposals, believing that, as on her former visit to Dun- 
 bar, an army of loyal subjects would speedily appear for 
 her deliverance ; but that, as day after day passed without 
 a sword being drawn in her defense, she was forced to con- 
 clude that the bond was genuine, and that her chief no- 
 bility were all in league with Bothwell ; and finally, that, 
 finding her a helpless captive, he assumed a bolder tone, 
 and " so ceased he never till, by persuasion and importu- 
 nate suit, acco7npanied not the less by force^ he has finally 
 driven us to end the work begun." 
 
 Mr. Burton speaks of Melville as holding his tongue 
 about what took place at Dunbar, and adds, " On the ques- 
 tion whether or not the Queen was treated with violence in 
 Dunbar Castle, there is no end of speculation, but there is 
 very little means of distinct knowledge." This is amazing, 
 in presence of the fact that Melville, so far from holding 
 his tongue, spoke out in the plainest and crudest terms pos- 
 sible. Mr. Burton elsewhere accepts Melville's authority, 
 and we therefore do not wonder that he is disturbed at such 
 a passage as this : " And then the Queen could not but 
 
ABDUCTION AND MARRIAGE. 
 
 191 
 
 marry him (Both well), seeing he had ravished her and 
 lain with her against her will." ^ Bothwell in his confession 
 states that he used a potion. Morton's proclamation ac- 
 cused him of violence to the Queen, and of using " other 
 more unleisum means," and finally the whole history of 
 the foul outrage is spread out in a solemn Act of the Scotch 
 Parliament, whose members were Mary's enemies acting 
 under the Regent Murray when she was a dethroned pris- 
 oner in England. . The Act is important in its bearing on 
 the Dunbar outrage and on the casket-letters. Mr. Caird 
 states that the violence used by Bothwell to the Queen is 
 characterized in the document as " Vis aut raetus qui cadit 
 in constantem virum," — such force and fear as would 
 shake a man of firmness and resolution. It is the law 
 phrase for such violence as would annul a deed." (Page 
 160.) 
 
 THE MARRIAGE. 
 
 " She was reduced to this horrid alternative — either to remain in a friend- 
 less and most hazardous celibacy or to yield her hand to Bothwell." — Lord 
 Hailes. 
 
 David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes) was no partisan of the 
 Queen of Scots, and he here truly describes her position at 
 Dunbar, victim as she was of the brutality of Bothwell, 
 the treachery of her nobles, and the supineness of those 
 who should have flown to her rescue.2 The honest min- 
 ister, John Craig, who, three weeks after the abduction, 
 proclaimed the bans of marriage batween Bothwell and the 
 Queen, did so under protest, and thus records it : — 
 
 " I took heaven and earth to witness that I abhorred and de- 
 tested that marriage as odious and scandalous to the world ; and 
 seeing the best part of the realm did approve it either hy Jiattery or 
 hy their silence, I desired the faithful to pray earnestly that God 
 would turn to the comfort of the realm that which was done 
 against reason and good conscience." 
 
 1 Memoirs of Sir James Melvil, Glasgow, ed. 1751. 
 
 2 " Not a spear was lifted, not a sword drawn, to save Mary from the 
 power of that atrocious ruffian." — History of Scotland : Sir Walter Scott. 
 
192 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Mary's bridal robes were of deep black. McCrie (" Life 
 of Knox," p. 294) says, She was the most changed woman 
 in face that her courtiers had seen." Dii Croc, the French 
 Ambassador, was told by her people that, "unless God 
 aided her, they feared she would become desperate;" and 
 by Mary herself, that she " could not rejoice, nor ever 
 should again. All she desired was death." Sir James 
 Melville records that " the Queen was sa disdainfully hand- 
 let, and with sic reproacheful language, that Arthur Askin 
 and I being present, hard hir ask a knyfe to stik herself, 
 ' or ellis,' said she, ' I sail drown myself " Drury writes 
 to Cecil immediately after the marriage : The opinion of 
 divers is that the Queen is the most changed woman in face, 
 that, in so little a time, without extremity of sickness, they 
 have seen." And even Maitland tells Du Croc, " That from 
 the day after her nuptials, she has never ceased from tears 
 and lamentations, and that he (Bothwell) would neither 
 allow her to see any one nor any one to see her." And 
 the woman thus pictured by a mass of testimony positively 
 unassailable, is described by Mr. Froude as " sensual," and 
 " sunk to the level of a brute ! " Are the bearing and 
 language of Mary Stuart, as here recorded by her enemies, 
 the manifestation of her passionate love for Bothwell ? 
 
 Space fails us to point out Mr. Fronde's violations of 
 historic truth in his account of these events. He would do 
 well to confine himself to suppression and insinuation. 
 Positive assertion runs greater risk, as being more readily 
 tested. Xot a single nobleman was present" (at the mar- 
 riage), (ix. 74.) Yes, with the exception of the Earl 
 of Crawford, the Earl of Sutherland, the Earl of Huntly, 
 Lord John Hamilton, Lord Livingstone, Lord Oliphant, 
 Lord Fleming, Lord Glammis. Lord Boyd, the Bishop of 
 Dunblane, the Bishop of Ross, and the Primate of Scot- 
 land, — not to mention certain small gentlemen,^ — Mr. 
 Froude is quite right, — " not a single nobleman was pres- 
 
 1 Diurnal of Occurrents, 111. 
 
*' ORIGINAL WORDS." 
 
 193 
 
 ent." The testimony as to INIary's wretchedness on her 
 marriage with Bothwell is so overwhebning,that Mr. Fronde 
 is aux abois. Pushed to the wall, he adopts a heroic rem- 
 edy, avers " she was jealous of his wife," and regales the 
 reader with this sketch : " The proud woman had prostrated 
 herself at his feet in the agony of her passion, to plead for 
 the continuance of his love." An attempt is made to bol- 
 ster up this invention with the following note (ix. 75) : — 
 
 " How profoundly she was attached to Bothwell, appears in the 
 following letter — one of the two of which I have recovered her 
 original words. It was written just before the marriage." 
 
 A very rash assertion. Not a single day was Bothwell 
 absent from her from April 24 (abduction) to May 15 
 (marriage). Then comes the letter commencing " Mon- 
 sieur, Si Tenniiy de vostre absence," which the historian is 
 careful not to translate. 
 
 " If there be any point agreed upon in Mary's history, it is 
 that she remained at Dunbar from the time that Bothwell carried 
 her thither till she returned to Edinburgh with him in May." 
 (Robertson.) 
 
 And under what close surveillance she was held by Both- 
 well, the rebel lords themselves have taken the pains to 
 tell us in their Act of Parliament : — 
 
 " No nobleman nor other durst resort to her majesty to Speak 
 with her, or procure their lawful business without suspicion, but 
 by him, and in his audience, her chamber doors being continually 
 watched with men of war." 
 
 The writer's " I have recovered her original ivords^^ is a 
 remarkable piece of cool presumption ; for the letter (" State 
 Papers," 1568, vol. ii. No. 66) has for long years been ac- 
 cessible to all and sundry who chose to examine it, and 
 was repeatedly copied and commented upon before Mr. 
 Froude was born. If the letter was written to Bothwell, 
 will some one explain how it is that Mary refers to two mar- 
 riages, the one private, the other public, — the first as past, 
 
 13 
 
194 
 
 MAKY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 the second to come ? How it is that, not yet being married 
 to Both well, she describes herself as his obedient and law- 
 ful wife, and refers to his neglect and absence ? The letter 
 is, in all respects, such as an affectionate wife would write 
 to her lawful husband, and provokes from Dr. Robertson 
 the remark that " Mary's adversaries were certainly em- 
 ployed very idly when they produced this." 
 
 Little wonder ! It is an original letter of Mary to Darn- 
 ley^ to whom it is historically certain she was twice married, 
 first privately, afterwards publicly. Darnley was neglect- 
 ful, and distressed the Queen by his frequent absence. 
 Bothwell, we know positively, during the one month they 
 were married, never left the Queen a single day. Does 
 any one believe that an adulterous woman, who has just 
 murdered her husband, would write to her paramour such 
 gratuitous blasphemy as " with as great affection as I pray 
 God, the only supporter of my life, to give you," etc. ? The 
 reader supposes he has before him the whole letter, but 
 Mr. Froude has suppressed the last ten lines, including 
 the passage, " She who will be forever unto you an humble 
 and obedient lawful wife." 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 CARBERRY. LOCHLEVEN. — LANGSIDE. 
 
 "Mary Stuart was suffered, without eitlier warning or opposition, to unite 
 herself with this worthless man, and it was not until her honor became in- 
 separable from his that the same advisers changed their note, sounded an 
 alarm to the nation, and called on all true subjects to rescue the Queen from 
 the control of Bothwell." — Snt Walter Scott: History of Scotland. 
 
 When Mary was brought by Bothwell from Dunbar to 
 Edinburgh, she was taken, not to Holyrood, but to the Castle, 
 where she was virtually a prisoner. She was not alloM^ed 
 to visit her child at Stirling, and it appears most probable 
 that the dreadful scene which terminated in her threat of 
 suicide was caused by her resistance to Bothwell's demand 
 for the custody of the Prince. Access was not allowed to 
 her, but by Bothwell's permission, and she never appeared 
 in public, but on compulsion and guarded. Her wretched- 
 ness was completed by Bothwell's conduct. " He was so 
 beastly and suspicious," says Melville, " that he suffered her 
 not to pass a single day without causing her to shed abun- 
 dance of salt tears." Meantime, a fresh plot and a new 
 coalition were formed, and of the nine earls at its head, 
 five of them had signed the bond approving Bothwell's 
 marriage with the Queen. 
 
 Sir James Balfour held the Castle of Edinburgh, and sold 
 it for a price to the lords. Dunbar was thus the only castle 
 left to Bothwell. The chief insurgent leaders, Morton and 
 Hume, both signers of the Ainslie bond, were at the head 
 of a large force, and Bothwell had got together some 
 two thousand men. The hostile bands met at Carberry 
 Hill, some six miles from Edinburgh. Du Croc, the French 
 
196 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Ambassador, went on the field for the laudable purpose of 
 preventing bloodshed. He was in profound ignorance of 
 the fact that Morton, Maitland, and others of these lords 
 wei e themselves as much the murderers of Darnley as was 
 Bothwell, and in his simplicity sympathized with them. 
 The lords told him that there were two conditions on which 
 fighting could be prevented. Fust, the Queen should 
 separate herself from Bothwell, in which case they were 
 ready " to serve her upon their knees as her most humble and 
 obedient subjects and servants." Second, that Bothwell should 
 come forth between the two armies, and make good his 
 challenge to meet in single combat any one who should 
 maintain that he was the murderer of the late king. Du 
 Croc carried their conditions to Mary, telling her that the 
 lords were her very humble and affectionate subjects ; " 
 upon which she remarked that it was ill of them to con- 
 tradict their own signatures afler having married her to 
 Bothwell, having previously acquitted him of the deed of 
 which they now accuse him. The fancy sketch of the re- 
 maining events of the day need not be dwelt upon : the 
 white flag, the Inchkeith fragment, the Queen's fuming 
 and chafing," her free, fierce nature," etc. According to 
 Melville, Kirkaldy entreated the Queen to put herself into 
 the hands of the lords, telling her how they would all love 
 her and serve her, if she would abandon him who was the 
 murderer of her own husband." He brought her a second 
 message, " assuring her, in their united names, they would 
 do as they had said." Before closing with Kirkaldy's prop- 
 osition, Mary exacted the promise that '-the Duke," as she 
 called Bothwell, should not be molested, and they should 
 do no harm to hir companie but licens thame to retire 
 thairselfs without ony skaith."^ Bothwell remonstrated, but 
 the Queen was firm, and, accompanied by a handful of his 
 followers, he rode off towards Dunbar. 
 
 Mr. Froude's Bothwell galloped off unpursued " is amus- 
 
 1 James Beton, in Laing. 
 
INFAMY OF THE LORDS. 
 
 197 
 
 log, for he was the last man on earth Morton and Maitland 
 wanted on their hands. A prisoner, he must be tried, but 
 they dared not arraign their own accomplice for the murder 
 of Darnley. He could have been pursued and taken be- 
 fore he reached Dunbar, but it was to their* interest to be 
 rid of him.^ 
 
 Our historian's " long passionate kiss " (ix. 93) is merely 
 one of his theatrical properties, as is also the courage with 
 which he invests Morton. On meeting the lords who came 
 toward her, Mary said : — 
 
 " My lords, I am come to you, not out of any fear I had of my 
 life, nor yet doubting of victory, if matters had come to the 
 worst, but to save the effusion of Christian blood ; and therefore 
 have I come to you trusting in your promises that you will respect 
 me and give me the obedience due to your native queen and 
 lawful sovereign." (Keith.) 
 
 Could her language, under the circumstances, have been 
 more temperate and dignified ? Yet we find her described 
 as " scornful, proucl, defiant as ever." Morton, answering 
 in the name of all, bent his knee before her and said, " Here 
 is the place where your Grace should be, and we will honor, 
 serve, and obey you as loyally as ever did the nobles of 
 this realm your progenitors." (Chalmers.) Scarcely had 
 the rebel ranks closed around the Queen, when a banner 
 was held up before her, upon which was represented Darn- 
 ley lying dead beneath a tree with an infant kneeling near 
 it, praying, "Judge and avenge My Cause, O Lord." 
 With this banner borne before her she was led into Edin- 
 burgh, assailed by the common soldiers with violent abuse 
 and the foulest epithets. Tears, anguish, and indignation 
 
 1 Camden says {Annals, p. 148), that the lords " privily admonished him 
 speedily to withdraw himselfe, for fear lest, being taken, he might have re- 
 vealed the whole eomplot; and that from his flight they might draw argu- 
 ment and subject whereof to accuse the Queen for the murder of the King." 
 It should be borne in mind that Camden wrote with all Cecil's papers, both 
 private and public, before him, and thus had facilities of information as 
 to matters in Scotland, not since enjoyed by any writer. 
 
198 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 choked her utterance. The outrage was so sudden, so hor- 
 rible, that she swooned. Recovering herself, and with her 
 proud spirit roused by such utter baseness, she turned upon 
 the lords, half maddened with insult and perfidy, and told 
 them in terms all too plain what she thought of them. Mr. 
 Burton who, like Mr. Froude always accepts Mary Stuart's 
 keenest anguish with calm resignation, thus describes the 
 scene : " The confederates were not destined to find in 
 their captive the meek resignation of a broken spirit." 
 
 She let loose her formidable tongue and hit right and left 
 with maddening effect." Did it occur to Mr. Burton when 
 writing that this " maddening effect " could never have been 
 produced upon innocent, high-minded men, by a vulgar 
 murderess? and that her attitude and bearing were not 
 those of a detected culprit ? Mr. Burton continues with a 
 reference to " her disheveled appearance," and says " that 
 she who was never known to depart from the etiquette of 
 her rank except to dignify that departure by her grace and 
 wit, should so revolt against her proper nature," is remark- 
 able, and he adds, " It goes with other incidents to show 
 that the terrible excitement of her recent life must have in 
 some measure disordered her brain." 
 
 She called Lindsay to her and demanded his hand. 
 " By the hand that is now in yours," she exclaimed, " I will 
 have your head for this." Poor Mary ! If she had ever 
 really learned the merest rudiments of a Medicean-Machia- 
 vellic policy she never would have made such a speech as 
 that. It was not the moment for aggression. Generous, 
 noble, kind, and confiding, her rare threats of revenge were 
 the only promises she ever broke. Fainting, weakened 
 with intense mental agony, travel-stained, with the dust of 
 hot summer intermingled with her tears, without suste- 
 nance the live-long day, she was thus dragged along through 
 hooting and insult taken up and reinforced at the gates of 
 her capital by an excited populace, and thrown in the com- 
 mon prison of Edinburgh, into a room without attendants or 
 
INHUMAN OUTRAGE. 
 
 199 
 
 even a single female to stay with her. Here, closely con- 
 fined for twenty-four hours, no one was allowed to approach 
 her, and the horrible banner was placed directly before her 
 window. 
 
 But what shall be said of the authors of so inhuman an 
 outrage? These men nuirdered Riccio ; they were the mur- 
 derers of Darnley ; they acquitted Bothwell and brought 
 about his marriage with Mary ; and now, having her in their 
 power, treat her with a personal brutality never inflicted 
 on the vilest criminal, and end their work by parade of a 
 blasphemous picture calculated to arouse and let loose 
 upon this defenseless woman the fury of an excited mob. 
 "The revolting 'humbug' of this last stroke," says the 
 " Edinburgh Review," " defies comment. More disgraceful 
 conduct does not sully the page of history. Even if Mary 
 Stuart were in very truth the ' murderess of Kirk o' Field,' 
 our sympathies are rather with her than with men who, 
 under no equal temptation, were at once murderers, trai- 
 tors, liars, and hypocrites." 
 
 Mr. Fronde's account is now made up of Maitland and 
 Calderwood. No such conversation with the Queen as 
 Maitland details ever took place. Du Croc's authority is 
 cited, but he merely undertakes to report what Maitland 
 told him in a conversation three hours long. Here is a 
 specimen : Maitland swore to Du Croc with a great oath 
 that they, the lords, had no intelligence w^ith the Queen of 
 England. Maitland swore to this with Cecil's letters in 
 his pocket at the moment ! " 11 me jura sur son Dieu 
 que jusque ici ils n'avaient ancune intelligence avec la 
 Reyne d'Angleterre." 
 
 Then comes the alleged letter of Mary to Bothwell — 
 another of Maitland's inventions. Kirkaldy was indignant 
 at their infamous treatment of the Queen, and to quiet him 
 Maitland invents the story of a letter she had just written 
 Bothwell. Such a letter — showing her inordinate affec- 
 tion for Bothwell — would indeed have been a godsend to 
 
200 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 them, for it was precisely what was needed to prove that 
 assertion. But the letter was never seen by mortal eyes. 
 Maitland said there was such a letter. The historian 
 Robertson totally rejects the fable. Even Buchanan and 
 Knox fail to use it, and when we come to Murray's Articles 
 accusing the Queen at Westminster, the letter is not visi- 
 ble, and in its place we have " and in farther pruif of hir 
 indurat affectioun towards him she conveyit a purs with gold 
 to him." Better " farther pruif " would have been a letter. 
 But Mr. Froude sees the letter plainly, and Mr. Burton 
 coolly states : " It seems clear, too, that she wrote a letter," 
 etc. " Melville renders its purport," — quoting it as though 
 Melville had seen it, when Melville distinctly says " it was 
 alleged that her majesty did write a letter sent to the Earl 
 of Bothwell." The indignation of the better part of the 
 citizens of Edinburgh is concealed by both these historians, 
 although Mr. Burton virtually admits the imputation con- 
 cerning the " hired strumpets " of the lords when he says : 
 " It was observed that the loudest and fiercest denunciations 
 came from her own sex, and not the most virtuous portion 
 of it." As soon as they were suffered to do so, Mary's ladies 
 — Mary Seton, Mary Livingstone, and three others — 
 bravely flew to her side and walked with her in the horrible 
 night procession from the Provost's House to Holyrood. 
 
 As an attempt to rescue the Queen was imminent, the 
 lords hurried her off at midnight to Lochleven — a ride of 
 thirty miles — on a miserable horse. Camden says they 
 treated her " ignominiously and disrespectfully," and con- 
 signed her to prison 
 
 " at Lochleven, under the custody of the Earl of Moray's 
 mother, who was James V.'s concubine, who further persecuted 
 her with such shameless malice during her restraint, boasting how 
 she was lawful wife to James V. and her son lawfully descended 
 from him." 
 
 On the night the rebel lords entered Edinburgh from 
 Carberry Hill, they arrested and imprisoned one Captain 
 
cullen's confession. 
 
 201 
 
 Cullen. " They tewk Capt. Culain that neight they en- 
 tered the town quha has been ay sensyn in the Irnis 
 (irons)," writes John Beaton, June 17. This Captain Cul- 
 len is the man referred to by Drury writing to Cecil April 
 24, 1567.1 
 
 From his correspondence, Drury appears to have ob- 
 tained a great deal of information concerning the Darn- 
 ley murder, at the time of the visit of Murray on his way 
 to France. Now it would have thrown a stronj; light on 
 the circumstances attending the murder if we could have 
 ascertained the names of the persons to whom Cullen gave 
 such excellent advice. We say excellent, for it appears 
 to have been adopted and successfully carried out, al- 
 though Drury's informant states that Darnley made a hard 
 fight for his life. Who were these men ? Cullen could 
 have told. " It was notorious that Cullen revealed the 
 whole circumstances." (Tytler.) And Cullen did tell, but 
 after making confession was strangled in his dungeon by 
 order of the lords who arrested him, — Morton at their 
 head. Why was Cullen's confession suppressed ? Because 
 Archibald Douglas, Morton's nephew, was present at the 
 murder, representing Morton, just as Ormiston and his 
 companions represented Bothwell, who also was not actually 
 present. The man seen at the murder in armor and with 
 slippers over his boots was Archibald Douglas. The man 
 who with others was entreatingly appealed to by Darnley 
 as his " kinsmen," was Archibald Douglas. Now we 
 know why Cullen was strangled in prison by the men 
 who were in rebellion, because " they desired only to 
 avenge the murder of the King," and who with lying mid- 
 night placards and blasphemous banners were denounc- 
 ing a helpless captive woman. 
 
 On the 8th of December, 1567, the Queen would be 
 
 1 " The King was long of dying, and to his strength made debate for his 
 life." "It was Captain Culleti's persuasion for more surety to have the 
 King strangled, and not to trust to the train of powder alone, affirming 
 that he had known many so saved." 
 
202 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 twenty-five years of age — the period limited for her re- 
 vocation of the enormous grants of crown lands made to 
 Murray and the leading nobles. This was the prize they 
 were struggling for. We are told (ix. 114), that "no 
 sooner, however, was Mary Stuart at Lochleven than pri- 
 vate feuds, and political divisions and sympathies, split 
 and rent the confederacy in all directions," as though 
 the lords confederated in rebellion comprised the strength 
 of the nobility. Very far from it. Their situation was 
 very critical. They w^ere in a small minority. The Ham- 
 iltons in the south, Huntly and Sutherland in the north, 
 and the great Border clans were all for the Queen. Ar- 
 gyll did not join them, and they had but four earls, Mor- 
 ton, Glencairn, Atholl, and Mar. The story of their 
 weakness is best told by one of themselves, Maitland, who 
 related that after they had imprisoned the Queen they 
 did not receive the support they had counted upon.^ 
 
 It was the ever-recurring lesson of history — the auda- 
 cious and united few against the irresolute and divided 
 many. The strength of the rebel lords was in their ability 
 and energy, and above all, in John Knox, who had lately 
 returned to Edinburoh for the first time since his fiis^ht 
 at the murder of Riccio. All the pulpits of the capital 
 now thundered the most furious invectives and wildest 
 denunciations against the Queen, and the lords could say 
 through them what they dared not say themselves. 
 Throckmorton reports these outrages in his letters to 
 London. A general assembly of the Kirk was now 
 held, and its moderator was — Buchanan. With this 
 strong body the rebel lords quickly made alliance, strength- 
 
 1 " Never ane came more to us than we were at Carberry Hill ; " that in 
 their desperation they set up the young Prince as King "just as a fetch to 
 get them out of the scrape." It was, he said, " as if you were in a boat on 
 fire — you would loup into the sea, and then when yon were like to drown, 
 you would be glad to get back into the boat." — Illustrations of Scottish 
 Eistoi^y, Dalzell. 
 
THE LORDS AND THE KIRK. 
 
 203 
 
 ening it with solemn promises of what they would do for 
 the Kirk in the matter of the church lands.^ 
 
 Meantime Charles IX. of France, sincerely attached to 
 his sister-in-hiw, would have moved in earnest for her, but 
 for the opposition of Catherine de Medicis, for the court of 
 France was now in reality what it never was when the 
 Queen of Scots was in France — that "court of Catherine 
 de Medicis " of which even historians talk so loosely. On * 
 the other hand, it would appear that Elizabeth was in 
 earnest in her disapproval of the treatment of Mary by the 
 rebel lords. She would give them no money, and she made 
 serious threats against them.^ Unfortunately, though, for 
 Mary and for herself, Elizabeth's character for insincerity 
 and duplicity was so well established that no one believed 
 her. Mary thought that her envoy to England, Sir Robert 
 Melville, might aid her. But he was banded with the lords, 
 and was her secret enemy. 
 
 With abundant leisure on their hands, no attempt was 
 made by the lords to capture Bothwell. He was at Dun- 
 bar, a short ride from the capital, all this time. Finally, 
 on the 2Gth of June, a reward is offered for him, and sent 
 to Dunbar with a notice to its keeper to deliver up the 
 castle. This was in reality a considerate hint to Bothwell 
 to leave. He evidently so received it, and, after making 
 leisurely preparation, sailed for the north of Scotland. Even 
 after this, on the 11th of July, they declared in writing to 
 Throckmorton that Bothwell had carried off the Queen, 
 " and by fear, force, and other extraordinary and more un- 
 lawful means compelled her to become bedfellow to an- 
 other wife's husband." And yet they afterwards claimed 
 
 1 It is sad to learn that these champions of virtue deceived the holy men, 
 for, records a Kirk historian, " having once attained tiieir ends, they did 
 forget all, and turned adversaries; " and John Knox says with much feel- 
 ing, " How they performed their promises God knows a'ways." 
 
 2 The success of subjects in imprisoning tiieir sovereign was not a pleasant 
 thing for Elizabeth to contemplate, and it behooved her to discountenance 
 such doings. 
 
201 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 that they already, on the previous 20th June, had in their 
 possession the casket-letters, and among these casket-let- 
 ters were those from Stirling agreeing to the abduction. 
 Murray and his friends dared uot go before a Scotch Parlia- 
 ment with the Queen. But something nuist be done. Some- 
 thing was done. Up to this time (end of November) the 
 Queen had been spoken of in all the public acts and proc- 
 lamations as the victim of Bothwell forced into a marriage 
 with him. It was now resolved that she should be accused 
 of complicity with Bothwell in both murder and abduction. 
 But the bond signed by the nobles for the murder of Darn- 
 ley was still in erxistence. It had been left by Bothwell " in 
 a little coffer or desk of green velvet " at the Castle of 
 Edinburgh, in the possession of Sir James Balfour. To 
 accuse the Queen of a crime which by this bond could be 
 proven to be the crime of others, would entail some risk. 
 Sir James was open to conviction, but, as Throckmorton 
 wrote Cecil, stood out for a high price. He had been 
 already well paid for holding the castle for the rebel lords. 
 He wanted better pay for giving up both castle and bond 
 to Murray, and he got it. Murray bribed him with £5,000, 
 an immense sum of money in those days, a valuable grant 
 of church lands, a slice off his own estates, a remission for 
 the King's murder, and an annuity to his son. It is touch- 
 ingly related (ix. 25 of the " History of England ") how 
 Murray made an effort to arrest Sir James Balfour as a 
 murderer of the King, " but he had been instantly crossed 
 by Bothwell." But this second effort appears to have been 
 more successful, and the Regent now held Balfour in the 
 double bonds of interest and affection. And here the re- 
 flection may not be misplaced, that in calling Balfour " the 
 most corrupt man of the age," the historian Robertson has 
 disregarded the just claims of others to that distinction. 
 As might be expected, there now goes a letter from Drury 
 to Cecil, November 28, 1567, reporting : "The writings 
 which did comprehend the names and consents of the 
 
MURRAY AND THE MURDERERS. 
 
 205 
 
 chiefs for the nnirdering of the King is turned into ashes." ^ 
 The other nuirderers were of course rewarded and honored 
 by all the powerful Regent Murray ; and Lethington, Mor- 
 ton, Huntly, and Argyll were retained in or promoted to 
 the highest positions of trust and honor in the kingdom, 
 all which was, we presume a part of the system under 
 which " The Regent,'' as we are told (ix. 170), '■^ set himself 
 to the solid work of restoring the majesty of justice.^' Mr. 
 Fronde's struggles at this stage of his task are simply 
 pitiable.^ 
 
 Mary's imprisonment at Lochleven lasted eleven months. 
 Meanwhile, the Regent had become obnoxious. The dy- 
 ing confessions of Hay, Hepburn, and others had told the 
 crowds about the scaffold who were the murderers of the 
 King, and that the Queen had no part in it. From the 
 seed of these declarations then implanted in the hearts and 
 memories of the Scottish people has sprung — among them 
 all, high and low, gentle and simple — that universal faith 
 ever since manifested by them in the innocence of Mary 
 Stuart. Satirical ballads, lampoons, and denunciatory 
 placards against the Regent and his party now abounded. 
 People were scandalized at Murray's pretense of adminis- 
 tering justice by associating with and rewarding the mur- 
 derers of Darnley. Denunciations were nailed to his gate, 
 caricatures and violent accusations were in circulation. 
 He was called tyrant, robber, bastard, and threatened with 
 
 1 Mr. Froude has this delicious commentary on the burning : " The 
 act itself was eminently natural." (ix. 200.) 
 
 2 Although hoodwinked by the casket-letters, even the French historian 
 Mignet has the candor to acknowledge at least a portion of the truth. He 
 says that neither Lethington, Huntly, Argyll, Balfour, Hamilton, nor Morton 
 were summoned before a tribunal which was partial, inexorable, or inactive, 
 according to the rank and standing of the guilty. " The Regent dared not 
 touch them. They had raised him to his position, and, united against him 
 could easily have oveYthrown him. He even conferred favors on several 
 of them, who should rather have been punished." " Le regent n'osa sdvir 
 a leur ^gard. Us I'avaient dlev('% et ils I'auraient ais^ment renvers<5 s'ils 
 s'^taient unis contre lui. W accorda meme des faveurs a plusieurs I'entre 
 eux, qui auraient merite des chatiments." — Mignet^ vol. i. p. 376. 
 
206 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 death if he dared lift a finger against the Queen. Mr. 
 Froude has seen all this and more in De Silva's letters at 
 Siniancas, and in Drury's letters to Cecil. The French 
 Ambassador reported to his government that two thirds 
 of the people of Scotland were ready to rise against Murray 
 in order to liberate the Queen and charge him and his 
 associates with the murder of Darnley. 
 
 Mary made her escape from Lochleven on the evening 
 of the 2d of May, and in a few days Imd an army of 6,000 
 men. Mr. Froude makes a desperate attempt (ix. 215) to 
 persuade the reader that the Queen's sujjporters were 
 merely " Catholics," but the fact has been noted that the 
 leading nobles who came to her support were Protes- 
 tants, the Earls of Huntly, Argyll, Eglinton, Cassilis, and 
 Kothes, Lords Claud Hamilton, Herries, Fleming, and 
 Livingstone.^ 
 
 With all the resources of the government at his com- 
 mand, Murray conld raise but 4,000 men wherewith to op- 
 pose the Queen's army of 6,000 ^ not yet filled up by 
 Huntly's large reinforcements from the north. Mr. Froude 
 is merely mistaken in saying (ix. 223) that Murray's force 
 was " better armed, better appointed, and outnumbering 
 hers." The great advantage Murray had was in the pres- 
 ence and aid of Kirkaldy of Grange, the best soldier in 
 England and Scotland. The armies met at Langside. 
 Against her own better judgment the Queen was induced 
 to fight the battle, and she lost it. 
 
 1 That in spite of all the eiforts of Murray and his faction, and in spite 
 of all the violence of the preachers, she — the Catholic Queen of Scotland, 
 the daughter of the hated house of Guise, the reputed mortal enemy of 
 their religion — should now after being maligned as the most abandoned 
 of her sex, find her best frien-ffs among her own Protestant subjects, ap- 
 pears at first sight inexplicable. A phenomenon so strange admits of only 
 one explanation. If tliroiighout her reign she had not loyally kept her 
 promises of security and toleration to her Protestant subjects, they assur- 
 edly would not in her hour of need have risked their lives and fortunes in 
 her defense. — Hosnck, p. 381. 
 
 2 ^h•. Burton gives t!ie Queen 6,000; Murray, 4,500. 
 
HARVEST IN MAY. 
 
 207 
 
 The enthusiastic and noble rally of the Scotch Protes- 
 tant nobility to the standard of Mary Stuart is very natu- 
 rally a source of unhappiness to our historian, who, by way 
 of compensation, would seek to persuade us that she was 
 detested by the people. He tells us (ix. 229) that " peas- 
 ants, as she struggled along the by-lanes, cut at her with 
 their reaping hooks." Mr. Ilosack, as a Scotchman who 
 knows his country, mildly remarks on this : " There 
 must be some strange mistake here, for never within hu- 
 man memory did reaping commence in Scotland in May, 
 and Langside was fought on the 13th of that month." In 
 a note on the same page (ix. 229) the English historian 
 mutters some words concerning a person " who did not in- 
 variably tell the truth," but we have not time to examine 
 the passage. 
 
 And now Mary Stuart made the great mistake of her 
 life. Against the advice of her friends, she resolved to 
 throw herself on the generosity of Elizabeth, whose ardent 
 professions of friendship had been profuse during her im- 
 prisonment at Lochleven. Accompanied by her ladies and 
 her stanch Protestant adherents, the lords Herries, Living- 
 stone, and Fleming, she crossed the Solway in an open 
 boat. The Queen of Scots went to her fate — a prison 
 and the scaffold. Elizabeth pledged her word to Mary 
 that she should be restored to her throne. She at the same 
 time pledged her word to Murray that his sister should 
 never be permitted to return to Scotland. Then began the 
 Scottish Queen's long nineteen years' martyrdom. The 
 conference at York and the commission at Westminster 
 were mockeries of justice. It was pretended there were 
 two parties present before them — Murray and his associ- 
 ates on one side, Mary on the other. Mary was kept a 
 prisoner in a distant castle, while Murray, received with 
 honor at court, held private and secret consultations with 
 members of both these quasi-judicial bodies, showing them 
 the testimony he intended to produce, and obtaining their 
 
208 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 judgment as to the sufficiency of his proofs before he pub- 
 licly produced them ; these proofs being the forged letters 
 of the silver casket. These letters were never seen by 
 Mary Stuart, and even copies of them were repeatedly and 
 persistently refused her. 
 
 4t 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 THE CASKET-LETTERS. 
 
 " TTint the leiiers were forged is now vinde sojjalpable that perhaps they will 
 never more be cited as testimonies.^'' — Dr. Johnson. i 
 
 Dr. Johnson appears to have counted without his — 
 Froude. Denounced from the beginning as forgeries, 
 these letters are rejected by such writers as Goodal 
 (1754), Gilbert Stuart (" History of Scotland, 1762), Tyt- 
 ler (1759), and Whitaker (1786). 
 
 Tytler the historian said it was " impossible for any sin- 
 cere inquirer after the truth to receive such evidence." 
 Later, came Dr. Lingard, of the same opinion. Chalmers 
 answered Laing's book, and proved conclusively, with a 
 mass of newly discovered testimony, that the accusers of 
 Mary were themselves the murderers of Darnley. Sir 
 James Melville is freely cited by Mr. Froude as good au- 
 thority. He plainly intimates that the casket-letter inven- 
 tion was a disgraceful piece of business, and says plainly 
 that the crafty Cecil persuaded Murray to accuse the 
 Queen of Scots in order that Elizabeth might have " some 
 pretext whereby to make answer to foreign ambassadors." 
 (" Memoirs," p. 186.) 
 
 The distinguished Robert Henry, a Scotch Presbyterian 
 divine (1718-1790), author of a " History of Great Brit- 
 ain " praised by Hume, Robertson, and Johnson, says : " I 
 have been long convinced that the unfortunate Queen 
 Mary was basely betrayed and cruelly oppressed during 
 her life, and calumniated after her death." ^ 
 
 1 See Appendix No. 8. 
 
 2 Transactions Scottish Antiquarian Society, vol. i. p. 538. 
 
 U 
 
210 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Sir Walter Scott (" History of Scotland ") rejected them, 
 addiug- that " the direct evidence produced in support of 
 Mary's alleged guilt was liable to such important objec- 
 tions, that it could not now be admitted to convict a felon 
 for the most petty crime." 
 
 The editor of Bishop Keith's " Affairs of Church and 
 State in Scotland " says : " A more outrageous mass of 
 rubbish and falsehood never was printed." 
 
 Miss Strickland has thoroughly exposed them, and sueh 
 distinguished Scotch authorities as Aytoun, Hosack, and 
 Caird reject them. Hundreds of scholars, fully the equals 
 of Mr. Froude in ability and acquirements, are thoroughly 
 satisfied of the forgery of these letters. He has, therefore, 
 no choice but to recognize the necessity of establishing 
 their genuineness. He makes this recognition, but pro- 
 ceeds without ceremony to use tlie letters, quieting his 
 readers with the assurance that their authenticity " will be 
 discussed in a future volume in connection with their dis- 
 covery," and, meantime, weaves the tainted papers so in- 
 geniously into his narrative that it is not always easy for 
 the reader to distinguish " Froude " from " casket." In the 
 same paragraph with his promise, the reader will remark 
 an intimation that the historian may, possibly, not keep his 
 word : " The inquiry at the time appears to me to super- 
 sede authoritatively all later conjectures." As might be 
 expected, on reaching the point fixed for the discussion, 
 our author totally fails to redeem his pledge, and falls back 
 on contemporary opinion and this astounding note : " That 
 some casket was discovered cannot be denied by the most 
 sanguine defender of the Queen." Further, instead of a 
 straightforward " discussion," Mr. Froude keeps up a des- 
 ultory muttering in occasional notes, avowing his belief in 
 the casket. " One of the letters," he says, " could have 
 been invented only by a genius equal to that of Shake- 
 speare." We are not told which is that letter, nor can 
 we understand the precise signification " here attached to 
 
THE CASKKT-LETTERS. 
 
 211 
 
 " invention." If beauty of diction is meant, we must differ ; 
 for, although tlie two probably genuine letters of Mary 
 Stuart among the eight are — like everything from her 
 pen — admirable in feeling and in style, still the genius 
 of a Shakespeare would not be required to produce them. 
 If he mean invention in the sense of imitation or the 
 talent of counterfeiting, we must say that it is ability of a 
 very low order. The history of literature abounds in suc- 
 cessful imitation of even classic writers by men of very in- 
 ferior talent, and Shakespeare's name naturally recalls the 
 history of the half-educated boy, an attorney's clerk,^ who 
 for nearly two years imposed upon the literati of England 
 with Shakespeare prose, poetry, sonnet, and tragedy, all 
 of his own manufacture. 
 
 We have long been of the opinion that attention has 
 not been sufficiently drawn to the external history of these 
 famous casket- letters. This portion of its history should 
 alone be sufficient to consign the plated cheat to oblivion 
 as the most impudent and flimsy of impostors, and is so 
 clear as to render superfluous any argument on the inter- 
 nal evidence, which is, if possible, yet more overwhelming. 
 The story of Mary's accusers is that, four days after the 
 flight at Carberry, Both well sent his retainer Dalgleish to 
 Edinburgh Castle to obtain from Sir James Balfour (in com- 
 mand) a certain silver casket, his (Bothwell's) property ; 
 that Balfour gave the casket to Dalgleish, notifying the 
 confederate lords " underhand," who intercepted Dalgleish 
 June 20, 1567, and took the casket, in which they claim to 
 have found eight letters, written by the Queen to Bothwell, 
 several contracts, sonnets, and bonds. Now, those who 
 choose are at liberty to believe that Dalgleish, well known 
 as a follower of Bothwell, was allowed to pass through 
 more than four hundred armed enemies and sentinels to 
 reach the castle ; that Balfour, an open enemy of Bothwell, 
 an acute lawyer, an unprincipled man (" the most corrupt 
 1 William Heniy Ireland. 
 
212 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 m:in in Scotland," says Robertson), than whom no clerk in 
 the kingdom could better appreciate the importance of such 
 papers, gave them up to a messenger without receipt or ac- 
 knowledgment of any description, thus running the risk of 
 their loss or destruction by Dalgleish, or his escape with 
 them,^ and thus placing himself and all his confederates at 
 Bothwell's mercy. They are, further, free to believe that 
 such a man as Balfour would have had the slightest hesita- 
 tion in appropriating the papers ; for he is supposed to 
 have already broken open the casket, inasmuch as it is 
 claimed that he knew what were its contents before deliv- 
 ering it to Dalgleish. But let us accept the story. What 
 then ? Arrested June 20th, not a word is said by Morton of 
 the casket at the meeting of the Privy Council on the next 
 day, June 21st, and Dalgleish was interrogated June 26th. 
 His examination and replies are preserved, and contain not 
 a solitary word concerning the casket, or letters or papers 
 of any description found upon him as alleged. The ex- 
 amination took place before the Privy Council. Neither 
 then nor at any other time did he make any statement con- 
 cerning it. He was executed January 3, 1568, and his 
 name was never ynentioned in connection with the casket story 
 until Jong after lie was dead. None of the servants of Mor- 
 ton who arrested him were examined. It may be said, the 
 Privy Council may not have been aware of the finding 
 of the casket. But BaHbur, who gave it to Dalgleish, 
 and Morton, in whose hands the casket is claimed then to 
 have been, were both present at the examination, Morton 
 as a member of the Council.^ It will be borne in mind 
 
 1 " And the man who had suffered the bird to fly out of his hand be- 
 cause he was confident he could catch it again, would have been considered 
 by Morton and his rebel brethren as a fool and an idiot for the act." Whii- 
 aher, vol. i. p. 202. 
 
 2 It is important to bear in mind, that this same Privy Council, on that 
 very 26th June, issued a proclamation offering a reward of 1,000 crowns 
 for the arrest of Bothwcll, guilty of the murder of Darnley, and of having 
 " traitorously ravished the Queen." But the sole object of three of the 
 
THE CASKET-LETTERS. 
 
 213 
 
 that the casket-letters were produced as the letters of the 
 Queen to Bothwell. But they were all undated^ undirected, 
 unsealed, and unsubscribed, and might as well have been 
 written to anybody as well as to Bothwell. Are we to be 
 told that the most astute lawyer in all Scotland could not 
 see the vital necessity of tracing, by evidence, these letters 
 to Bothwell's possession — letters which would prove their 
 writer guilty of adultery and murder? With the testimony 
 of Balfour and Dalgleish, Bothwell's ownership of the 
 papers is clear. Yet Balfour not only declined to. examine 
 Dalgleish, but did not even proffer his own poor testimony. 
 No curiosity concerning this capital point in their case ap- 
 pears to have been manifested by those interested, and we 
 hear not a word from them on the subject until months 
 after the death of the only person whose testimony could 
 have helped them. On the scaffold Dalgleish asserted the 
 innocence of INIary, charging Murray and Morton as the 
 authors of the murder. 
 
 But how is it possible that Morton and Balfour should 
 have neglected so essential a precaution as that of taking 
 Dalgleish's testimony as to the casket ? The answer is 
 very plain. Balfour never received such a casket from 
 Bothwell ; he delivered no casket to Dalgleish ; and, finally, 
 the so-called casket- letters were not then (June 20, 1567) 
 in existence. The first public announcement as to these 
 letters is in the famous Act of Council, December 4, 1567, 
 an Act signed by Morton, Maitland, and Balfour, all ac- 
 complices in the murder. 
 
 This Act charges that their seizure of the Queen's per- 
 son on the loth of June, and her imprisonment in Loch- 
 leven, and " all other doings inventit, spokin, writtin or 
 donne by them or onny of them, touching the said queene, 
 her person," from the 10th day of February until the date 
 
 eight casket-letters, -which Morton and Balfour claim then to have in their 
 hands, was to prove just the contrarj', — that the Queen herself arranged 
 the ' carrying off." 
 1 Except one, "this Saturday morning." 
 
214 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 of the Act, were in consequence of these, ^' her pi-evie letters 
 written and suhscribit with her aivin hand, and sent by her 
 to James, Earl of Bothwell." Notice the date of this Act, 
 December, 1567. It was not until the next year that the 
 story of the seizure of the silver casket was announced. 
 In the multiplicity of their combinations these men had 
 probably lost sight of the exact statements of the Decem- 
 ber Act, and thus, by their own declarations, proclaimed 
 to the world that they rose in insurrection on the 10th of 
 June, arrayed themselves in arms against her at Carberry 
 Hill, June 15th, and imprisoned her on the 16th, luholly 
 and solely hy reason of evidence of her guilt which fell into 
 their hands by the capture of Dalgleish on the 20th of June, 
 in the same year. Not a word of the casket, nor of stan- 
 zas, sonnets, contracts, and bonds. This is fatal. Laing, 
 the acutest of the forgery advocates, makes an effort to 
 show that the term " previe letters " may also be taken to 
 include other papers ; but " he fails to show," remarks Mr. 
 Hosack, that " either in Scotch or in any other language, 
 the term ' previe letters ' ever meant anything except pri- 
 vate letters and epistles." Thus, the letters declared, De- 
 cember 4, 1567, to be subscribed vnth her own hand, were 
 afterward claimed to have been discovered six months be- 
 fore, without any sic/nature ivhatever. The explanation is, 
 that by the 4th of December the forgery plot was framed, 
 and letters were to be produced signed by the Queen. Now, 
 forgery was no new thing to these gentlemen. Murray 
 produced forged papers pretended to have been found on 
 the Earl of Huntly, and with them imposed upon Mary. 
 They forged a letter from Mary to Bothwell, which was, 
 they claim, shown Kirkaldy as the excuse for their brutal 
 treatment of the Queen on the 15th of June. This letter, 
 of course, instantly disappeared, never again to be seen. 
 
 But these casket-letters might have to be publicly pro- 
 duced and submitted to some sort of scrutiny. This made 
 forgery of the royal signature a serious piece of business, 
 
THE CASKET-LETTERS. 
 
 215 
 
 and the man was not found who dared risk it, the more so 
 as he would know he could not trust his own confederates, 
 all scoundrels like himself. Hence the sudden right-about- 
 face made by the conspirators ; for their Act of Parlia- 
 ment, passed a few days after the Act of Council, describes 
 the letters, not as signed, but as " hailly written with* her 
 awin hand," and in that shape, that is, unsigned, they were 
 produced at Westminster. Notice that neither before the 
 Council nor before the Parliament in question were these 
 letters produced, and they ivere never shown in Scotland, 
 From the 20th of. June to the 4th of December not a 
 word of public announcement is said by the lords in allu- 
 sion to these papers, nor is there the slightest trace of 
 them in their own minutes of the Privy Council.^ Mel- 
 ville, the confidential envoy of the lords, is sent in August 
 to meet Murray on his return, but has not a word to say con- 
 cerning them. So far from it, he more than intimates in his 
 " Memoirs," written years afterward, that the casket-letters 
 were forgeries. Finally, Drury, the assured friend of the 
 rebels, and in daily receipt of intelligence from them directly, 
 and indirectly from his spies, makes no allusion to them. 
 
 Another argument. It is assumed that Bothwell, in his 
 hurried flight, took no papers with him. His flight from 
 Scotland was not hurried. He might have been pursued 
 after Carberry or taken at Dunbar. Only after the de- 
 struction of the Craigmillar bond, by which they were com- 
 promised, did the lords move against him, and even then, 
 by proclaiming a reward for his apprehension, gave him 
 
 1 Mr. Hosack, whose historical researches have been persevering and 
 thorough, with results brilliant for his reputation and most important to 
 the interests of historical truth, has discovered that in the original record 
 of the proceedings of Murray's Privy Council, still preserved in the Reg- 
 ister House, Edinburgh, no trace of the important Act of Council of De- 
 cember 4th, 1567 is to be found. "There is but one entry in the record of 
 December 4, 1567, and that relates to a totally different subject." The ex- 
 planation is that the Act was sent to Cecil, and that the Regent had his 
 own reasoi.s for not putting it on record. 
 
216 
 
 MAEY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 ample warning to save himself. Bothwell was arrested 
 on the coast of Norway as a pirate, and, to prove who he 
 was, had taken out of the hold of his vessel, where he 
 had it concealed, a portfolio full of private letters and 
 important documents. This portfolio or desk was fastened 
 with several locks, the keys of which were obtained from 
 one of his servants. The magistrates of Bergen found in 
 it numerous MS. letters and papers, and a letter from Mary 
 Stuart, " not of affection, but one of complaint, lamenting 
 her hard lot," which produced a very unfavorable impres- 
 sion concerning Bothwell, who was retained a prisoner. 
 Finally, if Mary Stuart had ever written any such letters 
 to Bothwell " of infinite importance to him," as Mr. Froude 
 truly says, would Bothwell have parted with them ? If he 
 consented to part with them, would he have left them at 
 the mercy of such a man as Balfour ? And granting 
 even that, can it be believed that James Balfour, of all 
 men in Scotland, would have loosened his grip upon them, 
 and delivered them, gratuitously, to the servant of an ab- 
 sconding felon ? Believe it who may ! Balfour was not a 
 man to give something for nothing. He was bought over 
 to join the confederates before Carberry, he was well paid 
 for the " green velvet desk " transaction, and Murray after- 
 wards gave him £5,000 in money, Pittenweem priory and 
 another valuable tract of church land, and an annuity for 
 his son. 
 
 On the ]j6th of September, 1568, Morton delivers the 
 casket to Murray, against a receipt certifying that Morton 
 had kept the casket, "faithfully (since June 20, 1567), 
 without in anything changing, increasing, or diminishing its 
 contents." Is this the lano^uasje of an honest transaction ? 
 How did Murray know whereof he certifies ? No matter ! 
 ]Morton's word is just as good as Murray's. Thus, the 
 casket should contain on the 20th of June all that Murray 
 afterward produced as its contents at Westminster. Let 
 us apply a test. On the very day Dalgleish was interro- 
 
THE CASKET-LETTERS. 
 
 217 
 
 gated, the Privy Council ordered tlie arrest of Bothwell 
 for the crimes of the murder of Darnley, and for having 
 " traitorously ravished the Queen." And yet, of the eight 
 casket-letters, three should prove the Queen's consent to 
 Bothwell's carrying her off.^ 
 
 Mr. Froude says it cannot be denied that some casket 
 was discovered. Certainly not. But when and Avhere ? 
 Mr. P^roude has no testimony on this point but the asser- 
 tions of Morton, Murray, and himself We freely grant 
 that " some casket was discovered." We admit, moreover, 
 that it was the very casket produced by Murray at West- 
 minster — a small silver-gilt casket belonging to Mary 
 Stuart, given her by Francis, her first husband. It was 
 among Mary's effects at Holyrood when they were plun- 
 dered by Murray and his friends, and when, as Mr. Froude 
 tells us, the Queen's chapel was " purged of its Catholic 
 ornaments." 
 
 We have a theory that Mr. Froude does not himself be- 
 lieve that a casket was found on Dalgleish, as the story 
 runs. And our reason for holding it is that he bases his 
 strongest statements concerninor it on facts which are in- 
 capable of demonstration or historical proof. He draws a 
 fancy sketch (ix. 39) of Bothwell solus, who, like a villain 
 in a melodrama, is seen to " put the bond away in a casket, 
 together with his remaining treasures of the same kind, in 
 case they might be useful to him in the future " (how our 
 historian reads the villain's thoughts !) — among the rest, 
 the fatal letter which the Queen had written to him from 
 
 1 No schedule of the contents of the casket was set forth in the Act of 
 Council or in the Act of Parliament. From first to last no list of the con- 
 tents was ever certified. In the above two Acts no mention was made of con- 
 tracts of marriage or sonnets, nor of the casket itself. Murray first reports 
 the whole as three sheets of paper (tres pUegos de papel)^ and 3''et when the 
 papers of the casket as last presented came to be published, they filled more 
 than forty pages of printed quarto.'-^ Bishop Leslie might well twit the 
 lords with their ^'■juggling box.'^ 
 
 2 Anderson's Collection, 
 
218 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Glasgow, etc. How can the reader have any doubt after 
 this ? Does he not here see the casket — almost touch 
 it? 
 
 Here is another casket appearance (ix. 118) : — 
 
 " The Earl of Both well, on leaving Edinburgh for the Border, 
 had left in Balfour's hands the celebrated casket which contained 
 the Queen's letters to himself, some love sonnets, the bond signed 
 at Seton before his trial, and one other, prohahly that which was 
 drawn at Craigmillar" 
 
 Deep, sir, deep ! The Craigmillar bond really was in 
 Balfour's hands, and if Mr. Froude can but manage to get 
 it into the casket, then also is the cashet in Balfour's hands. 
 Not without reason has Mr. Froude been styled the Robert 
 Houdin of modern Euglish literature. But he has more 
 proof at the next page : — 
 
 " They (Maitland and the other lords) might have experienced, 
 too, some fear as well as some compunction if, rt.9 Lord Herries 
 said, the casket contained the Craigmillar bond, to which their names 
 remained affixed." 
 
 Mr. Fronde's probably and if are mere grimace. He 
 knows perfectly well that the Craigmillar bond never had 
 any connection with the casket, knows when and where it 
 was found, how it was destroyed, and who destroyed it. 
 Thus it was : When the other murderers of Darnley con- 
 federated against Bothwell, the papers of the latter were 
 in the castle at Edinburgh. Word was sent Balfour that, 
 if he did not join them, he should be denounced with 
 Bothwell as the murderer of Darnley. Balfour acceded, 
 protecting himself with the perennial "bond " of that day, 
 to which he required the personal guarantee of Kirkaldy 
 of Grange — " in case the nobility might alter upon him." 
 He knew they were all as unprincipled as himself, but he 
 had faitli in the soldier's word. Thus made safe, he broke 
 open a green velvet desk in which Bothwell kept his valu- 
 able papers, and among them found the Craigmillar bond. 
 
CRAIGMILLAR BOND. 
 
 219 
 
 The testimony on this point is full and indisputable. In 
 1580, Morton was tried and found guilty as aiding in the 
 murder of Darnley. Balfour was a witness in the case. 
 Sir Francis Walsingham wrote (February 3, 1580) : — 
 
 " Tlie said Sir James Balfour found in a green velvet desk, late 
 the Earl of Bothwell's, and saw and had in his hands, the jDrin- 
 cipal bond of the conspirators in that murder, and can best de- 
 clare and witness who were the authors and executors of the 
 same." {Cotton Library, Caligula 6.) 
 
 And here is the testimony of Randolph, who writes to 
 Cecil, October 15, 1570 : — 
 
 " To name such as are yet here living, most notoriously known to 
 have been chief consentors to the ting's death, I mind not. Only I 
 will say that the universal bruit comes upon three or four persons, 
 which subscribed into a bond, promising to concur and assist 
 each other in doing the same. This bond was kept in the castle, 
 in a little coffer or desk covered with green, and, after the appre- 
 hension of the Scottish Queen at Carberry Hill, was taken out of 
 the place where it lay by the Laird of Liddington, in presence of 
 Mr. James Balfour, then clerk of the register and keeper of the 
 keys where the registers are." (Tytler, vol. vii. p. 346, and MS. 
 in State Paper Office.) 
 
 And with this crushing statement before hin), Mr. Froude 
 yet seeks to persuade his reader that the Craigmillar bond 
 was in the silver casket! " J/, as Lord Herries said, the 
 casket contained the Craigmillar bond ? " suggests our his- 
 torian, who is well advised that Lord Herries said nothing 
 of the kind. Lord Herries, on the contrary, states that 
 Balfour did not find any alleged letters of the Queen 
 among Bothwell's effects in the castle, but that he did find 
 the bond for the Darnley murder ; and he adds that, if 
 the Queen's letters had been genuine, her enemies would 
 only have been too glad of such an opportunity to try and 
 condemn her. 
 
 Here (ix. 110) follows the statement that "uncertain 
 what to do," the lords "sent one of their number in haste to 
 
220 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Paris to the Earl of Murray, to inform him of the discovery 
 of the letters, and to entreat him to hurry back immedi- 
 ately." Innocent reader finds in this passage contemporary 
 evidence of the discovery of the casket-letters, and so it 
 would be but for the fact that Mr. Froude makes the state- 
 ment without authority, the passage belonging not to history 
 but to romance. Close on the heels of this story we have an- 
 other. " The casket-letter proofs," runs the passage in dic- 
 tion of " yellow cover " novel, " laid out in deadly clearness, 
 acted on the heated passions of the lords like oil on fire." 
 (ix. 119.) What could there possibly be in "the casket- 
 letter proofs " at all new or surprising to them ? These 
 proofs were as to the Queen's adultery, the murder of the 
 King, and the Queen's marriage with Bothwell. Through 
 two volumes it has been incessantly dinned in our ears that 
 the adultery was long a matter of public scandal; we know 
 that these lords were at least her accomplices, if she was 
 guilty of the murder; and that by the Ainslie bond they ap- 
 proved if they did not force her marriage with Bothwell. 
 This is very good, but not half so imaginative as the por- 
 trayal of Sir James Balfour "furious at having been taken 
 in by Bothwell and the Queen ! " Think of the virtuous 
 indignation of Robert Macaire ! 
 
 And yet, in the face of the testimony, Mr. Froude has 
 the nerve to repeat his poor invention at page 200, vol. ix. : 
 " If, as there is reason to believe, the Craigmillar bond was 
 in the casket also," etc. Then follow two pages which we 
 commend to the serious attention of any admirer of Mr. 
 Froude who claims the possession of moral principles. 
 
 For the advocates of the genuineness of the casket-let- 
 ters the suspicious presence of the Scotch idiom in the 
 French version of the Glasgow letters presents an insur- 
 mountable difficulty. In the comparative obscurity of a note 
 (ix. 62) Mr. Froude thus seeks, quietly and in the fewest 
 possible words, to glide out of it : " The solitary " — {soli- 
 tary ?) — " The solitary critical objection to the genuine- 
 
THE CASKET-LETTERS. 
 
 221 
 
 ness of the letters has been that although Mary Stuart cor- 
 responded with Both well in French, the French version 
 which was published by Buchanan contained Scotch idioms 
 and must have been translated from Scotch. It was natu- 
 rally conjectured in reply that the originals were out of 
 Buchanan's reach, and that his French and Latin versions 
 of the letters were retranslations from the Scotch transla- 
 tion which was made when they were first discovered. It 
 is now certain that this was the truth." 
 
 But we must decline to accept Mr. Froude's " naturally 
 conjectured " and " now certain," as having any historical 
 value. The facts are that Buchanan assisted in showing^ 
 the original papers to Elizabeth's Commissioners in 1568. 
 In 1571, he published the Latin version (three letters) and 
 Scotch version, and in 1572 the French version. Mean- 
 time the originals were redelivered to Morton in January, 
 1571, and remained in his possession until he went to the 
 scaffold for Darnley's murder ten years afterward. Bu- 
 chanan's " Detection," ^ in which the letters appeared, was 
 written under supervision and by order of the men who 
 had the letters in their possession, the materials for the 
 work being furnished by them.^ 
 
 Thus then the matter stands. Buchanan, who was per- 
 fectly familiar with the identical casket-letters presented by 
 Murray, is employed by those holding them in their pos- 
 session to translate and publish them to the world, and they 
 were thus, very clearly, not "out of Buchanan's reach." 
 He does so. They are published in London, where were 
 
 1 See Appendix No. 9. 
 
 2 Cecil himself published the fact that, " The Book itself is written in 
 Latin by a learned man of Scotland, Mr. George Buchanan, one privy to 
 the proceedings of the Lords of the King's Secret Council there, well able 
 to understand and disclose the truth, having easy access to all the records of 
 that country that might help him. Besides that the Book was written by 
 him, not as of himself, nor in his own name, but according to the instruc- 
 tions to him given by common conference of the Lords of the Privy Coun- 
 cil of Scotland; by him only for his learning penned, but by them the 
 matter ministered." 
 
222 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 retained the exact copies of them as presented by Murray 
 and his associates to Cecil and the Commission, and by 
 which a spurious copy must have been immediately de- 
 tected. But they were accepted as copies of the French 
 letters as originally presented, and the assent to their 
 authenticity was universal. For two hundred years this 
 general assent was acquiesced in by writers on both sides, 
 until the historians Hume and Robertson, overwhelmed by 
 the evidence that the French of the disputed letters was a 
 translation from the Scotch, ventured the suggestion that 
 the true original French version had been lost. This eva- 
 sive and desperate subterfuge is Mr. Fronde's " it was 
 naturally conjectured ; " but there is no escape from the 
 conclusion that the French letters we now have are, in 
 their contents, the identical letters produced by Murray. 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE HIGHEST PROOF. 
 
 *' It is not for the historian to balance advantages. His duty is with the 
 facts." — Fkoude's History of Eiujlandj i. 92. 
 
 These casket-letters weigh heavily on Mr. Fronde's 
 pages. And well they may. He has shown them to us 
 when Bothwell put them in the casket, telling us precisely 
 what reflections passed through the villain's mind at the 
 moment ; we have again seen them in Sir James Balfour's 
 possession, " if the Craigmillar bond " was with them ; we 
 see them again " laid out in deadly clearness," and acting 
 " on the heated passions of the lords like oil on fire." We 
 see them at numerous points of Mr. Fronde's pages ; but 
 nowhere in these pages can we find a man in all Scotland 
 who even long months afterwards ever pretended to have 
 laid eyes upon them. All this is discouraging ; but our his- 
 torian has a masterly device in reserve, namely, to show 
 that Mary Stuart herself admitted the existence of the casket- 
 letters in August, 1567 (when they were not yet forged, and 
 before the conspirators had even determined upon the shape 
 in which to put them). Truly a dazzling tour de force. 
 Give it your attention. We have (ix. 159) a recital of the 
 first interview in Lochleven prison between the Queen of 
 Scots and Murray. This recital is based on a letter to 
 Elizabeth from Throckmorton, who repeats Murray's ac- 
 count of the interview, and it asserts the admission by 
 Mary Stuart of the existence of the casket-letters, — this, 
 too, at a time when, as we shall show, they had not yet been 
 fabricated, and when the precise form in which they should 
 be presented had not yet- been devised by the forgers. In 
 
224 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 the opening of this effort, our historian is bold, but his 
 wa7'p is so strong as to excite suspicion. Representing 
 Tlirockniorton as his authority, he says : The brother 
 and sister met without the presence of witnesses." " The 
 Queen received Murray with great passion and weeping." 
 But Throckmorton begins his letter (August 20, 1567) 
 thus : — 
 
 " It may please your Majesty, at the Earles of Moray, Athole 
 and Morton's arrival at Lochleven, they went immediately to the 
 Queen, who had conference ivith them altogether ; notwithstanding 
 the Queen broke forth into great passion and weeping, retiring 
 the Earle of Moray apart, who had with her long talk in the 
 hearing of no person." 
 
 Mr. Froude continues: "He sat with her for several 
 hours, but was cold and reserved. She was unable to infer 
 from his words either the ill which he had conceived of 
 her or meant towards her." 
 
 But this is far from conveying what Throckmorton 
 really wrote.^ 
 
 Then the reader is told — with a burst of rhetoric, a line 
 of poetry, and foul abuse of the poor prisoner — how Mary 
 Stuart is loved by this man Murray, " who had no guilt upon 
 his own heart." " He behaved himself rather like a 
 ghostly father unto her than like a councilor ! " And this 
 in quotation marks, as though expressing Throckmorton's 
 opinion. But Throckmorton said no such thing. He wrote : 
 1 do hear thai he behaved himself,'' etc. And he heard it 
 from excellent authority — Murray himself. 
 
 Mr. Froude here witheringly denounces historians who 
 absurdly pretend to a knowledge of the secret impulses 
 and motives of their historical characters, saying : " It has 
 pleased the apologists of the Queen of Scots to pretend an 
 entire acquaintance with Murray's motives." 
 
 1 " That talk, as I do learn (which continued two hours until supper time), 
 was nothing pleasant to the Queen, and chiefly for that the Earl of Moray- 
 talked nothing so frankly with her as she desired, but used covert speech 
 and such as she judged he would not discover neither the good nor the ill 
 he had conceived of her, nor meant unto her." 
 
THE INVENTIVE POWER. 225 
 
 But if we have understood the historians who have de- 
 scribed this interview,. they do not so nnich judge Murray's 
 motives as comment upon his acts.^ The Protestant Bishop 
 Keith, who can Iiardly be counted among apohjgists," says, 
 " Murray's craft shines conspicuous here. He first puts the 
 Queen into the terror of death, and dexterously manages 
 by a change of demeanor to make her suppose she has 
 room to be grateful to him." The Scotch historian Hosack 
 comments thus : — 
 
 " Nothing can exhibit in a clearer light the coarse and crafty 
 nature of the man. First to terrify his sister with the prospect 
 of immediate death, then to soothe her with false promises of 
 safety, and finally, with well-feigned reluctance, to accept the 
 dignity he was longing to grasp, displayed a mixture of brutality 
 and cunning of which he alone was capable." 
 
 The Presbyterian historian Robertson is of the opinion 
 that " Murray discovered in this interview a spirit so severe 
 and unrelenting — certainly one of the most unjustifiable 
 steps in his conduct." 
 
 " Her letters had betrayed the inmost part of her too despe- 
 rately for denials There is no such statement in Throck- 
 morton's letter. Idea, words, and all are purely the coinage 
 of Mr. Fronde's brain. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 Throckmorton writes : — Mr. Froude represents him as 
 
 writing : — 
 
 " They began where they left " He had forced her to see 
 over night, and after those his both her ignominy and her 
 
 1 To Mr. Froude the most interesting comment on this performance of 
 " the stainless Murray should be that of Monsieur Mignet, certaiiil}' not 
 an apologist, but, like himself, a defamer of Mary Stuart. " After having 
 signed her abdication tlirough terror, she was now surprised into assenting 
 to it. This assent, soon to be repented of, the cool and crafty Murray had 
 obtained from her by alternately exciting hope and fear in her troubled 
 heart." " Le froid et astucieux Murray I'avait obtenu d'elle en faisant 
 succ^der dans son cceur trouble I'espoir et la crainte." — Mignet, vol. i. p. 
 369. 
 
 15 
 
226 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 reprehensions, lie used some danger, but he would not leave 
 words of consolation unto her, her without some words of con- 
 tending to this and that he solation. He told her that he 
 would assure her of her life, would assure her life, and if pos- 
 and, as much as .lay in him the sible would shield her reputation, 
 preservation of her honor." and prevent the publication of her 
 
 letters" 
 
 The words in Italics are not in Throckmorton, the idea 
 conveyed by Mr. Froude is not there, nor is there in all of 
 Throckmorton's letter anything to warrant Mr. Froude's 
 assertion. It is pure invention. We know whereof we 
 do affirm. 
 
 There need be no question of conflict of reference in 
 this matter. Mr. Froude cites " Throckmorton to Elizabeth^ 
 Aug. 20, Keith" and by that authority we stand.^ 
 
 There is further garbling and more patching of this letter 
 (particularly in the attempt to bolster it with what Lady 
 Lennox said, which is merely what Murray said), but we al- 
 ready have enough. It is well, however, that the reader 
 should understand that Throckmorton's account of this 
 interview is from what was related to him by Murray. The 
 crowning ornament of Murray's character was his piety, 
 and we are surprised that Mr. Froude should have omitted 
 a beautifully characteristic trait of it related in this same 
 letter of Throckmorton. Murray had been requested to 
 come with Lethington. But he came alone, and it can be 
 well understood why he should prefer not to have the keen- 
 witted Maitland a listener to his version of the interview 
 with Mary. Again Throckmorton repeats his request as to 
 Lethington, whereupon, " The Earle of Moray answered. 
 We must now serve God, for the preacher tarrieth for us, and 
 after the sermon we must advise of a time to confer with 
 you." Not only was he pious, but Mr. Froude never tires 
 of telling us that his " noble nature had no taint of self in 
 
 1 See Keith, vol. ii. p. 734 el seq., Edinburgh edition, printed for the 
 Spotiswode Society, 1845. 
 
NO TAINT OF SELF. 
 
 227 
 
 it," and represents him (ix. 134) lately refusing rank, pen- 
 sion, and power from Catherine de Medicis. But Mr. 
 Froude fails to see the Spanish dispatches detailing Mur- 
 ray's •* gentle hint " to the King of France, which brought 
 him a present of plate valued at 3,000 crowns, and he is 
 even blind to a letter of Throckmorton to Elizabeth (Au- 
 gust 12), which relates in very plain English, " Your Maj- 
 esty is advertised of the present my Lord of Moray had 
 given him at his coming forth of France, which was valued 
 at 1,500 crowns, and of the pension brought him by Lign- 
 erolles of 4,000 franks yearly." 
 
 Murray's story is contradicted by all we know of the 
 Queen. She did not throw herself into his arms ; and Mel- 
 ville says that " from that moment all affection was forever 
 broken between them." Mary did not ask him to accept 
 the Regency. She states that she dissuaded him from it, 
 and then it was that " he threw off the mask, told her he 
 had already taken it, and it was too late to draw back." 
 As to Balfour's " frank confession," — the frank confession 
 of one described by John Knox as " blasphemous Balfour," 
 and by the historian Tytler as " this infamous man," — we 
 should first like to know something more of the Simancas 
 MS. referred to by Mr. Froude in that connection. There 
 appears to be such " fatal necessity of mistake " in Mr. 
 Fronde's citations, that we must ask to be excused from 
 accepting any of them without preliminary verification of, 
 first, their existence, and, secondly, their accuracy. 
 
 To return to the casket-letters. While Mary was im- 
 prisoned at Lochleven, Villeroy and Du Croc, the two 
 French Ambassadors, demanded interviews with the Queen, 
 but were refused by the lords. A week later the English 
 Ambassador was also refused, and in all three cases every 
 excuse was alleged but the discovery of the casket-letters. 
 On the contrary, the lords dwelt upon the violences and 
 outrages of Bothwell upon the Queen — accusing Bothwell 
 of making a prisoner of the Queen, and forcing her to 
 
228 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 marry him, — things distinctly contradicted by the casket- 
 letters. In like manner, when they seized the Queen's sil- 
 ver, the casket was not urged in excuse. July 24, 1567, 
 Lindsay sought to force Mary's abdication,^ and to obtain 
 it used brutal force. Mr. Froude (ix. 141) thinks that the 
 story that " Lindsay clutched her arm and left the print 
 of his gauntleted hands upon the flesh, that, having imme- 
 diate death before her if she refused, she wrote her name," 
 rests on faint authority. For Mr. Froude, all authority 
 concerning Mary Stuart is faint that does not come from 
 her enemies.^ If the casket-letters had really existed, the 
 menace to use them would have brought Mary's signature 
 without trouble, and Lindsay's brutality might have been 
 dispensed with. 
 
 The force of this objection is appreciated by the histo- 
 rian, hence his painfully ingenious piece of work with 
 Throckmorton's letter in order to represent Mary as yield- 
 ing under the same threat from Murray. On the day after 
 Mary was terrified into signing her abdication, we hear 
 the very first hint from the lords as to her " letters." The 
 hint was given to Throckmorton ; but they did not show 
 him the casket-letters for the very best of reasons. Throck- 
 morton writes to Elizabeth that the lords mean to charge 
 Mary with the Darnley murder, " whereof, they say, they 
 have as apparent proof against her as may be, as well by 
 the testimony of her own handwriting," etc. But not a 
 word of Dalgleish or the casket. Their story was not yet 
 fully prepared. 
 
 July 30, 1567. Now we hear of the three sheets of 
 
 1 We are told (ix. 126) that Mary " was obstinate only in her love for 
 Bothwell." Why they did she so gladly leave him at Carberry ? If she 
 wanted to join Bothwell all she had to do was to abdicate, and yet she re- 
 fused abdication at every risk, and only signed when advised that, being 
 obtained by force, her signature was of no value. 
 
 2 Robertson, who certainly is not her advocate, says: " Lord Lindsay, the 
 fiercest zealot in the party, executed bis commission with harshness and 
 brutality." 
 
INFANCY OF FORGERY. 
 
 229 
 
 paper — ires pUegos de papel. The forgery is evidently in 
 its infancy; for, when the casket nltlniately appeared, it 
 contained a mass of papers. Murray is in London. Ac- 
 cording to Mr. Fronde, he has received special informa- 
 tion ^ concerning this letter of three sheets of paper writ- 
 ten by the Queen to Bbthwell, for as such he describes it 
 to De Silva, the Spanish Ambassador. De Silva's report 
 of Murray's statements concerning Mary's letter — una carta 
 — is given (ix. 119) in the original Spanish. He is careful, 
 however, to furnish the reader no translation of it, hurries 
 over it as rapidly as possible, and abruptly leaves it by 
 plunging into some matter about John Knox. 
 
 Two traits eminently characteristic of our historian's 
 treatment of his material are prominent here. He always 
 avoids giving the English version of a paper which it would 
 be dangerous to translate, and he suddenly drops an incon- 
 venient subject to resume it subsequently on an assumed 
 basis. In this case, sixteen pages later, he coolly refers to 
 the De Silva report as " an accurate description " of the 
 casket-letter. The anxiety to escape intelligible statement 
 of IMurray's report to De Silva is very natural, for that re- 
 port is one of the most fatal blows ever dealt the silver 
 casket forgery. Murray's description to De Silva of the 
 letter " written by Mary to Bothwell " is that of a letter 
 totally differing in its essential features from that which 
 was afterwards produced, and " the theory that the letters 
 were forged in the later maturity of the conspiracy against 
 the Queen," so far from " falling asunder " under Murray's 
 
 1 " From one " he says, " who had seen it and read it" — it — la carta, 
 one letter. De Silva's languap^e is " y que lo de la carta lo sabia de qn'w.n 
 le habia visto y leydo," as given (ix. 120); but le is evidently a misprint 
 for la. If, as asserted, the casket and letters had been taken with Dalgleish 
 six weeks before, the story must necessarily have been repeated in that 
 shape and in no other, so peculiar and so striking was the circumstance. 
 But no, we hear of neither Dalgleish, nor casket, nor letters, but of a letter! 
 It may be remarked here that the Spanish citations throughout these vol- 
 umes are full of evident errors, the result, probably, of passage through sev- 
 eral written and printed copies. 
 
230 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 statement, as Mr. Froude would have us believe, is here 
 strengthened to the very verge of demonstration. Murray's 
 account, we are told, is an " accurate description " of the 
 Glasgow letter. Let us look at the accuracy. The very 
 first point is a fatal divergence. Murray describes the let- 
 ter as signed by the Queen — Jirmada de su nomhre. No 
 such letter was produced among the casket-letters, which 
 were all without seal, date, address, or signature. The Queen 
 is made to say that she will go and bring Darnley — iria d 
 traerle — that is, go to Glasgow, while the letter afterwards 
 produced purports to be written at Darnley's bedside in 
 Glasgow ; that she would contrive, continues Murray's ac- 
 count,^ to poison Darnley on the way, and, failing that, 
 would bring him to the house where the explosion by pow- 
 der should take place ; that Bothwell, on his side, should 
 get rid of his wife by divorce or poison — and other atroci- 
 ties — none of which appear in the letter subsequently pro- 
 duced. How does it happen that Murray's informant saw 
 them, if they were not there ? And if they were there, how 
 came they to disappear ? It should be remarked that the 
 horrible programme in this letter is not put forward by the 
 Queen as something to be considered and decided upon by 
 Bothwell, but as the plan already agreed upon between 
 them — lo que tenian or din ado. 
 
 Thus, this " accurate description " of the casket-letter, 
 besides carefully specifying all the above points which are 
 not in it, totally fails to mention the following, which clearly 
 
 1 We cannot allow one of Mr. Froude's many laudations of Murray to 
 pass without a word of comment. He tells us that in London, — " whatever 
 might have heen his secret thoughts, he had breathed no word of blame 
 against her (Mary). He had mentioned to De Silva the reports which were 
 current in Scotland, but, he had expressly said that he did not believe them.'''' 
 If Mr. Froude will take the trouble to read his own Spanish citation (ix. 
 119, 120) he will perceive that Murray not only repeated the contents of 
 the imaginary tres pUegos de joape?, but volunteered the most atrocious 
 accusations against the Queen, thus striving, b}-- repetition of reports and iiis 
 own personal statements, to make the worst possible case against his sister, 
 with expression of much affected distress about the " honor of his father's 
 house." 
 
IMPORTANT DISCOVERY. 
 
 231 
 
 appear from it. It was written from Glasgow ; it was not 
 signed by the Queen ; it does not even hint at poisoning 
 Darnley on the road, " a una casa en el camino," nor at the 
 Kirk o' Field explosion, nor the murder of Lady Botliwell. 
 
 A LATE DISCOVERY. 
 
 Guzman de Silva listened attentively to all that Murray 
 had to say (July 30, 1567) concerning the letter by which 
 Mary was said to have fatally compromised herself, as 
 though he had not already heard of it. De Silva was al- 
 ways well informed as to many secret movements of the 
 Scottish lords, and it is very evident that he could depend 
 upon at least one of them for early intelligence. Hereto- 
 fore, the first recorded historical mention as to , the exist- 
 ence of Mary's alleged letters has been found in Throck- 
 morton's letter of July 25th; but a paper at Simancas 
 proves that De Silva had heard of them before that date. 
 This important discovery was made by M. Jules Gauthier, 
 ("Histoire de Marie Stuart"^), and reveals the important 
 fact that the casket- letters, yet to be produced, were already 
 discussed in England and known to Elizabeth before the 
 Scottish lords had made any public allusion to them. Here 
 is the language of the document. On the 21st of July, 
 1567, De Silva writes to Philip — we translate : — 
 
 " I told the Queen (Elizabeth) that I had been informed that 
 the lords were in possession of certain letters from which it ap- 
 peared that the Queen of Scotland was knowing to the murder 
 of her husband. She answered me that it was not true, and, 
 moreover, that Lethington was therein badly employed, and that, 
 if she saw him, she would say a few words to him which he 
 would find far from agreeable." 2 
 
 1 A work of great research and power. It effectually disposes of M. 
 Mignet's effort. M. Gauthier was a firm believer in Mary Stuart's guilt, 
 until, on visiting Edinburgh, he Avas struck with the general expression 
 of the fullest faith in her innocence. This led him to examine the subject. 
 His examination extended through six years of research, and the result ia 
 his published work in two volumes. 
 
 2 " Apunte a la reyna que avia sido avisado, que en poder de los seiiores 
 
232 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Mr. Fronde's labors at Simancas have been referred to 
 by his admirers as one of the triumphs of modern historical 
 research. But although, as he states, he had " unrestricted 
 access" to that important collection, he does not seem to 
 have made himself acquainted with this important letter 
 of De Silva. It appears that Elizabeth manifested no sur- 
 prise at the ambassador's announcement, and this goes far 
 to show that the forged letters were already under consid- 
 eration in England as a means of inculpating the unfortu- 
 nate Mary Stuart. It is equally evident that Elizabeth 
 herself looked upon the letters as forgeries perpetrated by 
 Lethington.^ 
 
 estaban ciertas cartas per donde se entendia que la reyiia de Escocia oviese 
 sido sabidora de la muerte de su marido; dixome que no era verdad, aun 
 que Ledington avia tratado mal esto, e que si ella le viese, le diria algunas 
 palabras que no le harian buen gusto." — Archives of Simancas, leg. 819, 
 fol. 108 ; Gauihier, vol. ii. p. 104. 
 
 1 And this agrees perfectly with the intimation given by Camden, who 
 evidently knew more of Cecil's secrets than he consigned to his pages, that 
 Lethington (Maitland) was no stranger to their fabrication. It also accords 
 with the frequently expressed suspicion of ]\!ary Stuart herself, and with 
 the opinion of several historians. Elizabeth's answer leaves but little 
 doubt that the directing hand in the forgery was Maitland's, and we know- 
 that, next to Murray and Morton, he had the greatest interest in fixing 
 upon Mary the odium of Darnley's murder. 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 " The chief of the Council is Cecil, a man of low extraction, cunning, 
 
 false, malicious, full of all deceit He is diligent, acute, and 
 
 never keeps faith or word." — Don Gueran in Fkoude's History of Eng- 
 land, ix. 377. 
 
 In the opening pages of his ninth volume, the historian 
 deals his reader this staggering blow : — 
 
 " As the vindication of the conduct of the English government 
 proceeds on the assumption of her guilt, so the determination of 
 her innocence will equally be the absolute condemnation of 
 Elizabeth and Elizabeth's advisers." 
 
 Rem acu tetigisti, for that is precisely the conclusion 
 reached by those who have most thoroughly studied the 
 question. We really wonder at Mr. Froude's imprudence 
 in drawing attention to Elizabeth in this connection. 
 There was not a plot or conspiracy against Mary to which 
 Elizabeth was a stranger. There was not during all Mary's 
 reign a traitor or a murderer fleeing from Scotland to 
 England whom Elizabeth did not protect. All the Riccio 
 murderers were safe there. Ker of Faudonside, who held 
 a cocked pistol at Mary during the Riccio murder, and 
 who was excepted from the general pardon, found sure 
 refuge in England during all of Mary's reign.^ 
 
 Complicity in both the Riccio and the Darnley murder 
 is directly brought home to Elizabeth and Cecil. The 
 first is proven by the correspondence of that day yet in the 
 
 1 Mr. Froude informs us that " to Morton she (Elizabeth) sent an order, 
 a copy of which could be shown to the Queen of Scots, to leave the coun- 
 try; but she sent it with a private hint that England was wide, and that 
 those who cared to conceal themselves could not always be found." (viii. 
 285.) 
 
234 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Record Office. The second is sufficiently made out not- 
 withstanding the disappearance from the English records 
 of the voluminous reports of the English agents in Scot- 
 land a month before and a month after the Darnley mur- 
 der. This important fact has lately been made known by 
 Mr. Caird.i (p. 128.) 
 
 But Elizabeth's guilty knowledge of the Darnley murder 
 most strikingly appears in her conduct when Morton was 
 tried for it. Fourteen years after the occurrence, one of 
 the first acts of King James on his freedom from tutelage, 
 was to commit the Earl of Morton to the Castle of Edin- 
 burgh, charged with the murder of Darnley. Morton was 
 one of the very few surviving conspirators. Bothwell was 
 dead in exile ; Maitland had poisoned himself, and Murray 
 had been shot down in the streets of Linlithgow. With 
 dismay she heard of his commitment. Mr. Burton says 
 that " the news were received at the court of Elizabeth 
 with utterances of rage which took in some measure the tone 
 of fear." It was resolved to stop the proceedings if possi- 
 ble, and if Elizabeth's own life had been at stake, her 
 effi)rts to stay the trial could not have been more frantic. 
 Her utterances of rage soon take the more definite shape 
 of sending an army to the Border, of reviving her old prac- 
 tices of inciting insurrection in Scotland, and, most signifi- 
 cant of all, of sending to Edinburgh the crafty Randolph, 
 to whom Leicester, Elizabeth's lover, wrote, with a sugges- 
 tion thinly veiled, that the young king might follow his 
 father : " He will not long tarry on that soil. Let the fate of 
 his predecessor be his warning." Then came an official 
 appeal to the Scots to protect Morton, promising that Eng- 
 land would stand by them. " But James," says Mr. Caird, 
 " owed a debt to the memory of his murdered father, to the 
 name of his captive mother who was pining in an English 
 prison." Morton was tried, found guilty, and executed. 
 Mr. Caird cites and refers to a mass of dispatches con- 
 1 Mary Stuart, her Guilt or Innocence. By Alexander McNeel Caird. 
 
THE queen's jewels. 
 
 235 
 
 iiected with Elizabeth's movements in tliis Morton matter, 
 and adds that Queen Elizabeth's violence before Morton's 
 trial and execution was not more remarkable than her sud- 
 den attitude of acquiescence as soon as his mouth was shut. 
 " Did he hold some terrible secret whose disclosure she 
 feared ? " But we have more direct testimony as to the 
 complicity of Elizabeth and Cecil in the Darnley murder 
 from an insolently threatening letter written five years 
 after the murder by Sir Janies Balfour to Cecil, the orig- 
 inal of which is still preserved among the Cotton MSS. 
 He advises Cecil that he requests " him and the Queen's 
 ynajesty to interpose their injiu.eace and authority to protect him 
 from the imminent peril of being brought to trial for the mur- 
 der.'* He further requests Cecil " that ye will procure 
 your Sovereign's letters to be direct with expedition to the 
 Regent's grace and Council," etc. ; and in conclusion he 
 takes " God to witness that if any inconvenience arise in 
 consequence, the ftiult must not be imputed to him, but 
 doubts not that her Majesty and his Lordship ivill think well 
 of the matter and do their part, so that he obtains the surety 
 he requires." 
 
 Thus wrote " the most corrupt man in Scotland " to the 
 Majesty of England and her prime minister, in the lan- 
 guage of one guilty accomplice to another. The threaten- 
 ing insolence of his certainty that they will think well of the 
 matter, can only be accounted for by the belief that he had 
 a hold upon them. 
 
 THE queen's jewels. 
 
 At Lochleven, Mary, in her trusting confidence, had vol- 
 untarily placed all her valuable jewels in Murray's hands 
 for safe keeping. From among them he selected a set of 
 rare pearls,^ which he sent by an agent to Elizabeth, who 
 
 1 The pearls are thus described: " Six cordons of large pearls strung, 
 and five-aiul twenty separate from the rest much finer and larger than 
 those which are strung." 
 
236 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 agreed to purchase what she well knew he had no right to 
 sell. Under such circumstances, as is the custom among 
 thieves and receivers, she expected a bargain, and got it. 
 It was a very pretty transaction. Catherine de Medicis 
 was anxious to obtain these pearls, which were esteemed 
 the most magnificent in Europe, and wrote to La Forest 
 to purchase them for her. He replied that he had found 
 it " impossible to comply with her majesty's wish, for they 
 had been intended for the gratification of the Queen of 
 England, who had been allowed to buy them at her own 
 price — one third less than the sum at which they had been 
 valued by the jewelers." The transaction naturally dis- 
 turbs our historian. Nevertheless, he finds that " the sale 
 in itself would seem too simple to require to be defended. 
 Mary Stuart was held to have forfeited her crown, and in 
 justice to have forfeited her life." 
 
 Really this historian has a strange code of jurisprudence. 
 Mary was at Lochleven. What court decided that she had 
 forfeited crown and life ? Sentence by Justice Murray, con- 
 firmed by Chief Justice Froude, perchance ? The " empty 
 treasury," and the " state of anarchy " left by Mary Stuart 
 are amusing. " Anarchy and empty treasury " were com- 
 plaints long chronic in Scotland, and during Mary's reign 
 she supported her court, not with Scotch, but with her own 
 private funds from her French dowry. The pearls and 
 all her other jewels were her private property, brought with 
 her to Scotland, and she had asked Murray to take charge 
 of them and other personal effects of value — a trust which 
 he accepted, and, of course, violated. But, after all, the 
 transaction must have been blameless, for Mr. Froude as- 
 sures us that it " seemed so little improper to " — to — 
 Mary Stuart ? — not at all — but — " to Catherine de Me- 
 dicis (!) that she wrote to her ambassador" — what the 
 historian cites but fails to translate.^ 
 
 1 A clever woman -was Catherine; for, finding that after all her trouble 
 and anxietj' to obtain the pearls she had failed to secure them, she very 
 
THE queen's jewels. 
 
 237 
 
 Such of Mary's jewels as Murray did not sell, he retained 
 for himself or gave to his wife. Even Elizabeth remon- 
 strated with him on his merchandising, advising him " to for- 
 bear the sale," "for otherwise it shall be judged that the 
 ground and occasion of all your actions proceedeth of a 
 mind to spoil her of her riches, and greatly to henejit yourself 
 and your friends'' (October 2, 1568.) Elizabeth writes 
 here with the perfect equanimity of the just, her dead bar- 
 gain in Mary's pearls being closed some months back. 
 
 On Murray's death it was known that many of Mary's 
 most valuable jewels were in Lady Murray's possession.^ 
 This Lady Murray — the same who receipted to John- 
 stone for the " three sealed bags of specie," — was, like 
 her late lamented husband, of remarkable acquisitiveness 
 and excellent business capacity, and successfully resisted 
 all Mary's efforts made through the Earl of Huntly and 
 Lord Seton — as also those made by the Regent Lennox 
 and the Earl of Mar — for the recovery of the stolen prop- 
 erty. Finally, Morton, when regent, " determined " — Mr. 
 Burton states it in this plain prose — " to have restoration 
 of her plunder.'' He says, too, with tenderness of phrase 
 for Murray,^ " It has naturally been maintained, and can- 
 not be disproved, that she obtained them by her husband's 
 connivance." Among the items of " the plunder " was a 
 wondrous diamond called " the Great Harry," a gift to 
 
 sensibly makes the best of it, andrwith grimace of politeness protests she 
 is delighted that Elizabeth has them. And so she tells her ambassador — 
 " il n'est plus de besoing de vous mettre en pique " — " there's no use in 
 staying angry " — thus plainly implying the indignation expressed in his 
 previous letters on the subject. 
 
 1 This was strange, indeed, for Murray had written to his mistress Queen 
 Elizabeth: "This I may boldly affirm unto your Highness, that neither I 
 nor any friend of mine has been enriched with the value of a groat of any 
 of her goods to our private uses. Neither, as God knows, did the ground 
 and occasion of any of my actions proceed of sic a mind." (October 6, 
 1568.) 
 
 2 Whom he elsewhere " damns " with such suspicious praise, as " his 
 position might have given him opportunities for acts far more unscrupu- 
 lous than any committed by him." 
 
238 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Mary from her father-in -taw, King Henry II. of France. 
 Lady Murray's (now Lady Argyll) struggle was long and 
 obstinate. Several orders for the jewels were issued by 
 the Privy Council. At last (March 5, 1575) they were de- 
 livered up, — " Ane great Harry of diamond with ane ruby 
 pendant thereat ; six other jewels, thereof three diamonds 
 and the other three rubies." 
 
 MAITLAND, KIRKALDAY, AND MORTON. 
 
 Surprise has been expressed that Mr. Froude should 
 have made so little of Maitland (Lethington), the really 
 jDrominent figure among the Scots of his period. He was 
 by far the most talented man of the day in Scotland and 
 England, of great intellectual grasp and high statesman- 
 like power. And an expression of similar surprise may 
 be made with regard to Kirkaldy of Grange, — a man of 
 many heroic qualities and the best soldier of his day in all 
 Britain. The secret of Mr. Fronde's reserve on this point 
 may perhaps be found in the fact that in the day of Mary 
 Stuart's adversity these men openly espoused her cause, and 
 sealed their devotion by dying for it, thus practically pro- 
 testing against the inflmious plot in which they themselves 
 were banded against her. 
 
 On the other hand, we have already spoken of the readi- 
 ness with which that writer issues certificates of the high- 
 est moral excellence to any enemy of Mary Stuart, mean- 
 time suppressing or softening mention of his misdeeds. 
 This is very plain in the case of Murray ; and a strong 
 effort is also made for Morton, a man steeped in crime. 
 His merit in the eyes of our historian is that " he di- 
 rected the storm which drove Mary Stuart from her throne 
 and imprisoned her at Lochleven." Merit like that must 
 be rewarded at least by negative praise and suppression 
 — thus : " His middle life was very far from blameless" 
 Very far, indeed ! He was notoriously gnilty of seduc- 
 tion, adultery, robbery, peculation, oppression, and mur- 
 
MORTON SELLS NORTHUMBERLAND. 
 
 239 
 
 der.^ Robertson says that when he was regent, " spies 
 and informers were everywhere employed, the remem- 
 brance of old offenses was revived, imaginary crimes were 
 invented, petty trespasses were aggravated, and delinquents 
 were compelled to compound for their lives by the pay- 
 ment of exorbitant fines." 
 
 The effort made in Mr. Fronde's history to suppress 
 Morton's crowning infamy is so remarkable that it should 
 not be passed over. When, after the Riccio murder, Mor- 
 ton fled to England, he enjoyed the hospitality of Percy, 
 Earl of Northumberland. A few years later the Earl 
 took refuge in Scotland from Elizabeth's omnivorous scaf- 
 fold. Murray would have delivered him up for a price, 
 but dared not.^ 
 
 Soon afterward Morton delivered, or rather sold North- 
 umberland to Elizabeth. "No one," wrote Hunsdon to 
 Cecil, " spoke more loudly against the proposed surrender 
 (by Murray) than Morton, yet it was he himself who after- 
 wards gave up Northumberland for a large bribe." The 
 fact that Morton was guilty of this infamy is not a question 
 to be discussed, so thoroughly settled is it, and so indelibly 
 recorded in the historic annals of both England and 
 Scotland as a deep stain on the honor of the one and the 
 humanity of the other. 
 
 1 The following description of an original portrait of Morton, at Dalma- 
 hoy House, is from vol. v. p. 91, Miss Strickland's Lives of the Queens 
 of Scotland: "He wears the Geneva hat, but it neither conceals the vil- 
 lainous contour of his retreating forehead, nor the sinister glance of the 
 small gray eyes peering from under his red shaggy brows. The very twist 
 of his crooked nose is expressive of craft and cruelty; the long upper lip, 
 hollow mouth, and flat square chin are muffled in a bush of red mustache 
 and beard ; but the general outline is most repulsive, and bespeaks the hypo- 
 crite, the sensualist, the assassin, and the miser — and all these he was." 
 
 2 The very thieves of Liddesdale shrank in horror from the perpetration 
 of such dishonorable meanness, and threatened that if Murray attempted 
 it, '* the Borderers would start up and rive both the Queen and the lords 
 from him, for the like shame was never done in Scotland; and that he 
 durst better eat his own luggs than come again to Fernihurst ; if he did, he 
 should be focht with ere he crossed Soutra edge." 
 
240 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Mr. Burton, the latest historian of Scotland, thus relates 
 it: — 
 
 " He (Morton) had the captive in his own custody in the Castle 
 of Lochleven, so that he did not require to compromise the gov- 
 ernment in the matter ; and before that time when he became re- 
 gent — June 7 — he handed over Northumberland to the English 
 authorities. It would appear that £2,000 cash down, forming 
 the consideration for this concession, of which a contemporary 
 says, ' The fault was done for some other cause nor we know, to 
 the great shame of this realm to send so noble a man ane prisoner, 
 y ea, that came in this realm for safety of his life, wha was soon 
 after his coming to London, headed, quartered, and drawn.' " 
 (vol. V. p. 330.) 
 
 In the " Historie of King James the Sext," we read : — 
 
 " The Earle of Northumberland was randerit to the Queene 
 of Ingland, furth of the Castell of Lochlevin, be a certain condi- 
 tion maid betwix hir and the Earle of Mortoun for gold ; quilk 
 was thankfullie payit to Mortoun," etc. 
 
 Throughout all Scotch history there is but one version 
 of the fact. But Mr. Froude thus relates the infamy, to- 
 tally ignoring Morton as its perpetrator : — 
 
 " Randolph," he says, was permitted afterwards to open a ne- 
 gotiation with the Lord of Lochleven, who undertook to put North- 
 umberland in the Queen's hands for the sum," etc. " Lochleven 
 was evidently in earnest. The Queen could not lose her prize, 
 and the money was sent to Berwick to be paid on receipt of the 
 Earl's person. Morton still attempted to make delays, less in 
 pity for Percy than in indignation at Elizabeth ; but £2,000 was 
 a temptation too considerable for a needy Scotch gentleman to 
 resist. To Sir Wm. Douglas it was indifferent whether he re- 
 ceived it from England or Flanders," etc. " He (Morton) con- 
 tented himself, therefore, with entreating that at all events the 
 Earl's life might be spared," etc. 
 
 Elizabeth spare his life ! Our historian may well add : 
 " The bargain was a bitter one to Scotland. The passions 
 of the people were heated sevenfold." (x. 350.) 
 
MORTON'S CHARACTER. 
 
 241 
 
 As long as Mary Stuart is in question, Morton must be 
 protected by this historian, although away from her, he ap- 
 pears to be quite capable of at least a partial appreciation 
 of his true character. In the month of November, 1865, 
 Mr. Froude delivered a public lecture at Edinburgh, in the 
 course of which he told his audience : " Morton was an 
 unprincipled scoundrel, who used the Reformation as a 
 stalking-horse to cover the spoils which he had clutched in 
 the confusion." 
 
 And it was solely on the word or oath — it really does 
 not matter which — of this man Morton, that the story of 
 the capture of the casket-letters, and of their identity, was 
 accepted as judicial testimony by the English commission- 
 ers, and is now accepted by Messieurs Froude, Mignet, and 
 Burton ! 
 
 16 
 
CHAPTER XXL 
 
 THE CONFERENCE AT YORK. 
 
 " Little did Cecil foresee, when he was busily framing one hollow pretext 
 after another for detaining the royal fugitive, what a future he was prepar- 
 ing for his royal mistress Nineteen years of incessant remon- 
 strance and recrimination, of incessant anxiety and danger, as well from 
 foreign as from domestic foes, to be followed by an eternity of infamy at 
 last." — HosACK, Mary and her Accusers^ p. 386. 
 
 We must positively decline sharing with Mr. Froude his 
 enthusiastic admiration of Cecil as a Christian statesman. 
 The man who as prime minister of England could receive 
 and entertain propositions from assassins for doing a piece 
 of work in their line,^ who could so intimately connect him- 
 self as he did with the Riccio and Darnley murderers, who 
 for long years disgraced England and humanity by the 
 constant use of a system of torture which dwarfed the 
 Spanish Inquisition into a mere apprentice in cruelty, and 
 who could in cold blood treat a defenseless woman as he 
 treated the Queen of Scots, must have been essentially a 
 bad man. His ability, such as it was, no one contests. 
 Statesmanship in the brutal and bloody days of the despotic 
 rei^n of Elizabeth demanded a man who was something of 
 a cross between Fouche and Torquemada. He was cool, 
 
 1 An English gentleman named Woodshawe wrote to Cecil, Lord Bur- 
 leigh, in November, 1575, confessing a burglary, and offering to poison 
 people in Flanders whose hospitality he was then enjoj'ing. A pious English 
 gentleman, he was too, for he tells Cecil in the same letter: " What I have 
 been, God forgive me my folly; but what I am, I pray God give me grace 
 that I may do that service to the Queen's majesty and my country which 
 my faithful heart is willing to do." The incident is almost incredible in its 
 infamy, but is so true that even Mr. Froude relates it (ix. 40), and says: 
 "■ Nor is this the strangest part of the storj'. Loi^d Burghley condescended 
 to make use of this many 
 
AN ENGLISH STATESMAN. 
 
 243 
 
 calculating, and cautious, well weighing the pros and cons 
 of his questions before he moved or struck. The English 
 StiUe Papers are full of such notes as he was evidently in 
 the habit of making for the purpose of arguing, as it were, 
 before himself, any given case. One of the most remark- 
 able of these memoranda is the following document in his 
 own hand found among his papers, and still in existence, 
 in which he defines Mary Stuart's relation to the English 
 government on her arrival in England. 
 
 "PRO REGINA SCOTORUM. 
 
 " She is to be helped, because she came willingly into the realm 
 upon trust of the Queen's majesty. She trusted upon the 
 Queeu's majesty's help because she had in her troubles received 
 many messages to that effect. She is not lawfully condemned, 
 because she was first taken by her subjects, by force kept in 
 prison, put in fear of her life, charged with the murder of her 
 husband, and not admitted to answer thereto, neither in her own 
 person nor by advocate, before them which in Parliament did 
 condemn her." 
 
 The position here made for the Scottish Queen is simply 
 impregnable, and these few lines present the facts, the logic, 
 the law, and the justice of the case. But what had justice, 
 or even mercy^ to do with the rule of Cecil and Elizabeth. 
 It was resolved she should be kept a prisoner. We would 
 not wonder that our English historian should find it dif- 
 ficult to give any clear idea of the frightful dimensions or 
 the labyrinthine complication of Elizabeth's mendacity and 
 double dealing in her transactions with the Scotch Queen 
 on the one hand and the Scotch lords on the other. If he 
 simply desired to recount events fairly, it must be conceded 
 that the task is not an easy one. But when, to a total 
 disinclination to do this much, he superadds the effort to 
 deepen the colors of his portrait of Mary Stuart as the 
 worst of women, and to lend angelic tints to the picture of 
 his spotless Murray, it can readily be understood what 
 
244 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 manner of fiction we have before us. It is simply impos- 
 sible for the reader to obtain from Mr. Froude's narrative 
 any clear idea of the events connected with Murray's pro- 
 duction of his " copies " at York and his casket at West- 
 minster. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that if Mary Stuart had wished 
 to avoid the alleged danger of the casket-letters, all she 
 had to do was, as a sovereign to decline the competency of any 
 tribunal or commission to examine or decide upon any ques- 
 tion touching her. But she was induced to consent to the 
 conference in order to show that Morton and the rest were 
 Darnley's murderers. The conference being determined 
 upon, what is Murray's position ? If his casket-letters are 
 not forgeries all he has to do is to present them, and there 
 is an end of the Queen of Scots and of her case ; for if 
 these letters be the letters of Mary Stuart, she is, beyond 
 all peradventure, an adulteress and the murderer of her 
 husband. Let us not be told of any delicacy or brotherly 
 affection on his part that should make him hesitate thus to 
 publish his sister's shame to the world. He had already 
 repeatedly done so in Scotland by public proclamation. 
 But still he does not produce his casket, and here, we are 
 told, is the reason : — 
 
 " Murray, not choosing to step forward in the dark and make 
 himself Elizabeth cat's-paw (!) immediately sent translations of 
 the casket-letters to London. He said that he could produce the 
 originals, and prove them to be in the Queen's hand. He de- 
 sired to know whether they were to be admitted in evidence ; 
 and if admitted, what effect would follow." (ix. 263.) 
 
 So far as this pretends to give the sense of Murray's 
 request to Elizabeth, it is the merest rubbish — a delusion 
 and a snare.^ 
 
 1 Here is what Murray wrote : " It may be that snch letters as we have 
 of the Queen that sufficiently, in our opinion, prove her consenting to the 
 murder of the King her lawful husband, shall be called in doubt by the 
 judges to be constituted for the examination and trial of the cause, whether 
 
WHY PRODUCE COPIES? 
 
 245 
 
 The modern bank forger dares not walk boldly up to the 
 cashier and demand the value called for by his check, but 
 takes the precaution first to send some one to ascertain if 
 it can be certified. With similar deceit,. Murray asks for 
 judgment on his copies. The timid anxiety of the forger 
 is seen in this first step, and on this clearly suspicious 
 course of producing copies instead of originals, we are 
 happy to offer the opinion of a distinguished English his- 
 torian, who, " clothed in his right mind " in commenting 
 on the case of the Blount (Leicester) letters in England, 
 says : — 
 
 " But in that case, and in any case, it remains to ask why he 
 produced copies of the letters if he was in possession of the orig- 
 inals ; unless there was something in the originals which he was 
 unwilling to show ? " (See " History of England," by James 
 Anthony Froude, vii. 290.) 
 
 Yet, after all, Murray's copies turn out to be translations 
 ** in our language" that is to say, Scotch. Scotch copies for 
 Elizabeth who did not understand nor read the language, 
 instead of copies of the originals in French (as alleged) 
 which she could read. The truth is that Murray was even 
 worse off than Blount, who may have had something he 
 was unwilling to show in the originals, for the casket orig- 
 inals were not yet manufactured of the two or three let- 
 ters upon which the forgers most relied. The only letters 
 of importance as testimony against the Queen are the two 
 first, and they were conclusively proven by Goodal, and 
 the elder Tytler, more than a century ago, to have been 
 
 they may stand or fall, prove or not. Therefore, since our sei-vant Mr. 
 John Wood has the copies of the same letters translated in our language, we 
 •would earnestly desire that the said copies maybe considered by the judges 
 that shall have the examination and commission of the matter, that ih.e,y 
 may resolve us thus far in case the principal agree with the copy, that then 
 we prove the cause indeed ; for when we have manifested and shown all, and 
 yet shall have no assurance that what we send shall satisfy for probation^ for 
 what purpose shall we either accuse or seek to prove, wlien we are not as- 
 sured what to prove, or when we have proved, what shall succeed ? " 
 
246 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 written originally in Scotch. But Mary Stuart could not 
 write the Scotch language, and French versions of the Scotch 
 drafts were produced and alleged to be hers.^ 
 
 All Mary's papers at llolyrood, and all Darnley's papers 
 at Kirk o' Field fell into the hands of the lords, and it was 
 a clever device to select a few of Mary's genuine letters to 
 Darnley (mainly expressions of affection) to mingle with the 
 counterfeits. These casket-letters all come to us -from 
 the same source, the Darnley letters in Mary's beautiful 
 French ; and when the forgery is plainly shown by Goodal's 
 demonstration, that the French of those letters only which 
 prove the Queen's guilt is a translation, and a very bad trans- 
 lation, from the Scotch, we are told that there must have 
 been another French version which has disappeared. Mr. 
 Froude makes a feeble attempt to get over this difficulty with 
 his solitary critical objection " at p. 62. vol. ix. Murray 
 moreover modestly asked that the judges should beforehand 
 give him — not an opinion as to their sufficiency, but the 
 assurance that his copies would be accepted as conclusive. 
 
 Meantime Mary made a declaration to the effect that 
 the letters referred to which may infer presumptions 
 against me are false and feigned, forged and invented by 
 themselves to my dishonor and slander," etc. 
 
 October 11th INIurray submitted the letters private 
 and secret conference " to the English Commissioners, and 
 these letters so submitted were in Scotch. He exhibited 
 them as the originals, and showed them to the English 
 Commissioners as Mary Stuart's letters. Norfolk, one of 
 the Commissioners, wrote to P^lizabeth (as quoted ix. 294) : 
 
 1 The proofs that the Scotch was their original idiom are numerous, un- 
 answerable and some of them very amusing. The Queen is made to write, 
 "I shall end niy bylle (bybil) " — a Scotch word still used for any writing 
 — translated into Latin biblin, thence into Frencli bible. Again, "I am 
 ii'kit (weary) and going to sleep." Mot understanding the word, the Latin 
 translator makes naked of it, and solemn'^' puts down " J'Jyo nudatn sum,^^ 
 and is followed in French with an improvement, Je suis toute nue.'" And 
 this is claimed to have been written in the month of January. 
 
MR. FROUDK'S invention. 
 
 24T 
 
 " They showed me a horrible and h)nj; letter of her own 
 hand, as they say, containing foul matter," etc. " The 
 lords." he said," were ready to swear that both letters and 
 verses were in her own handwriting." 
 
 Our historian is very careful here to avoid committing 
 himself on the points as to whether the letters thus shown 
 were in Scotch or in French, and gives his reader this 
 piece of ambiguity : " He allowed the Commissioners to 
 see'in private ivhat he loasahle to produce" He continues : 
 '* He (Norfolk) inclosed extracts from the letters in his 
 dispatch, and he left it to Elizabeth to say whether, if they 
 were genuine, ' ivhich he and his co?npam'ons believed them 
 to be' there could be any doubt of the Queen of Scots' 
 guilt." (ix. 295.) The passage in Italics is put by Mr. 
 Fronde in inverted commas, as though quoting it from 
 Norfolk's letter. The old story ! The passage is of his 
 own invention. 
 
 THERE ARE NO SUCH WORDS IN IT, NOR 
 ANYTHING LIKE THEM.^ 
 
 Norfolk " inclosed extracts from the letters " " in her 
 own handwriting." A correct statement, with the qualifi- 
 cation " as they say," and the extracts are all Scotch.^ 
 
 The English Commissioners were the Duke of Norfolk, 
 the Earl of Sussex, and Sir Ralph Sadler. Of these three 
 men, Cecil had the highest opinion of Sussex, and wrote 
 privately to him for his views and advice as to the matters 
 before them. Mr. Froude states this fact more concisely : 
 " Lord Sussex, in an able letter, laid before Cecil the whole 
 
 1 Cah'd, preface to 2d ed. p. 34. 
 
 2 One of them was a most dishonest trick even for forgers. They put in 
 the Scotch version " M -k (jwJe waich that the bird escape not out of the 
 c^ge ; " which is now found to b^. the false translation of a portion of Mary's 
 beautiful sentence, " Comme I'oyseau eschappd de la cage, ou la tourtre 
 qui est sans compagne. ainsi je demeureray seule, pour pleurer vostre ab- 
 sence, quelque brieve quVlle puisse e?tre," and was invented to convey the 
 idea of a warning from the Queen to Bothwell not to let Darnley escape. 
 It is in letter No. 4, English edition, of the Detection. This letter car- 
 ries internal evidence of being a genuine letter of Mary to Darnley. 
 
248 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 bearing of the question." Mr. Froude is eminently correct 
 here. It is an able letter. Sussex had seen " what Mur- 
 ray was able to produce," and more than he dared ever 
 produce a second time ; ^ he had doubtless reflected on the 
 matter during the interval, eleven days, and he wrote on 
 the 22d of October to Cecil that,, relying on his promise 
 of secrecy, he imparts his views, and thinks the accusation 
 of the Queen of Scots will hardly be attempted. Of all 
 this Mr. Froude makes no mention, and says that Sussex's 
 first position was that the Queen would disown the letters, 
 and accuse Murray's friends of consent to the murder. 
 We shall now state in the Duke's own language what he 
 really said on this point, and give the reader an opportunity 
 of contrasting his words with the historian's version of 
 them : — 
 
 What Mr. Froude says the 
 Duke or Sussex wrote 
 TO Cecil, (ix. 297.) 
 
 " The matter would have to 
 end either by finding the Queen 
 guilty, or by some composition 
 which would save her reputa- 
 tion. The first method would he 
 the best, hut it would require Mur- 
 ray's help, and Murray, for two 
 reasons, might noiv decline to give 
 it. " 1 . She would disown the 
 letters, and in return accuse his 
 friends of manifest consent to 
 the murder hardly to be de- 
 nied." 
 
 What the Duke of Sus- 
 sex REALLY WROTE TO CE- 
 CIL. 
 
 » October 22, 15—. 
 " This matter must at length 
 take end, either by finding the 
 Scotch Queen guilty of the 
 crimes that are objected against 
 her, or by some manner of com- 
 position with a show of saving 
 her honour. The first, I think, 
 will hardly be attempted, for two 
 causes : the one, fior that if her 
 adverse party accuse her of the 
 murder hy producing of her let- 
 ters, she loill deny them, and ac- 
 cuse the most of them of mani- 
 fest consent to the murder, 
 
 1 The following documents shown as part of the contents of the casket 
 at York, were never afterwai'ds produced : First, A pretended letter of 
 the Queen concerning the altercation between Darnley and Lord Robert 
 Stuart. Second, A warrant, signed, they declared, with the Queen's own 
 hand, authorizing the nobility to sign the Ainslie bond. 
 
BOLD MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 249 
 
 haxdly to be denied ; so as upon 
 the trial on both sides, HER 
 PROOFS WILL JUDICIAL- 
 LY FALL BEST OUT, AS 
 IT IS THOUGHT." 
 
 Overlooking minor irregularities in this pretended ver- 
 sion given by Mr. Froude of the Sussex letter, it will be 
 noticed that the passages marked by Italics and capitals in 
 the original letter of the Duke are suppressed ; and that 
 the passages in the pretepded version which are marked 
 in Italics are of the writer's own invention. Moreover, 
 both the suppression and the invention are very serious in 
 their nature. Sussex, so far from thinking that it would 
 be best to find the Queen guilty, expressly says that in his 
 opinion it will not be attempted, for she will deny (not dis- 
 own) her letters and present a stronger case against them 
 than they can make out against her. As to the insertion 
 of the passage Concerning Murray, we pass it without com- 
 ment. 
 
 It will be noted that this judgment of Sussex is no mere 
 idle conversation, but a deliberate opinion, given under an 
 appreciation of the highest responsibility. The inference 
 is irresistible that he placed no faith in the genuineness 
 of the letters produced as writings of the Queen, although, 
 if the Glasgow letters are hers, there is no escaping belief 
 in her guilt. 
 
 It is necessary to bear in mind that Murray exhibited 
 " what he was able to produce " to the English Commis- 
 sioners " in private and secret conference," — so say the 
 Commissioners themselves, — and neither the Queen herself 
 nor her Commissioners had any knowledge of it. These 
 facts have only of late years come to light, all that is known 
 of them being revealed by the confidential letters of Sus- 
 sex and Norfolk — letters which Hume and Robertson 
 never saw. Norfolk, at first somewhat dazed by the " hor- 
 rible letter," appears a few days later to have viewed the 
 
250 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 matter differently, and writes to Cecil that the affair is 
 perilous and perplexing," adding, that if she is formally 
 accused, she will desire to be present in person. And so, 
 not noticing Elizabeth's devices for delay, the York con- 
 ference closed. Murray took with him to York, Lord Lind- 
 say, Maitland, John Wood, Pitcairn, Mackill, Balnaves, and 
 Buchanan, whose pen had already been purchased for Mur- 
 ray's purposes. We have seen some of these men among 
 the murderers of Cardinal Beaton, some with the murder- 
 ers of Riccio, others banded with the murderers of Darn- 
 ley, and four of them sat as judges at the mock trial of 
 Bothwell. 
 
CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 WESTMINISTER. TART FIRST. 
 
 "Void la Cassette Miraculeuse." — Robert Houdin. 
 
 The Duke of Norfolk was right. The Queen of Scots, 
 if accused, would wish to be present in person. On the 
 22d of November, 1568, Mary instructed her Commission- 
 ers, Leslie, Bishop of Ross, the Lords Herries (Protestant), 
 Boyd (Protestant), and Livingstone (Protestant), Gavin 
 Hamilton the Commendator of Kilwinning (Protestant), 
 Sir Jolin Gordon of Lochinvar, and Sir James Cockburn 
 of Skirling to demand that she should be permitted to appear 
 inperson in presence of the Queen of England^ the whole of 
 her nobility^ and all the foreign ambassadors in London, to 
 answer all that " may or can be alleged against ris by the cal- 
 umnies of our rebels." She further instructed her Commis- 
 sioners, in case of refusal of this demand, to break off the 
 conference. In other words, she is ready to meet Murray, 
 Morton, the rebel lords, their accusations, and the casket- 
 letters, in face of the whole world. Any attitude less de- 
 cided than this might have warranted the imputation of 
 Mary Stuart's N. ant of confidence in her own innocence. 
 
 If Elizabeth and Cecil had possessed the slightest faith 
 in the strength of the case against the Scottish Queen, they 
 would have eagerly closed with the proposal, for only of 
 Mary's own free will could they place her in such a posi- 
 tion of publicity. Their inclination favored it, their in- 
 terest demanded it. But the warning of Sussex was be- 
 fore them, — her proofs will judicially pall best 
 OUT, — and they dared not run the risk of a public failure. 
 An evasive answer wUs given the Commissioners, and 
 
252 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 fiirther delay made. Mr. Froude cites (ix. 341) in a note, 
 "The Queen of Scots to the Bishop of Ross and Lord 
 Herries, Nov. 22. Goodal, vol. ii." This is the paper 
 containing Mary's demand (p. 185), which Mr. Froude 
 deliberately suppresses, substituting for it the statement 
 (p. 342), " She demanded to be heard in person in reply 
 before the assembled English peers ; " and the sneer at 
 p. 352, " The Queen of Scots, in applying to be heard 
 in person, had contemplated a pageant at Westminster # 
 Hall," etc. For an excellent specimen of rhetorical device 
 the reader may see pp. 342, 343 vol. ix. beginning, " It 
 seems," and ending, " The Regent laid on the table a written 
 declaration that his sister had been the contriver and de- 
 viser of the murder of which Bothwell had been the instru- 
 ment." Mr. Froude is here entirely too considerate of 
 Mary Stuart's reputation. He omits to tell the reader that 
 Murray added to the charge of murdering her husband, 
 " an intent to murder her child." Then, melodramat- 
 ically, " The accusation was given in. The evidence on 
 which all would turn was still in reserve." It was indeed 
 in reserve, and hung fire like unto any other damaged am- 
 munition. And then we are told of what Mary feared, 
 and what she felt, and the precise condition of her mind. 
 Here we are powerless for comment. On Mary's demand 
 to be heard in person, Elizabeth still dissembled, still equiv- 
 ocated to the Commissioners, telling them (December 4) 
 that she would not consent to endanger the Queen's honor 
 unless the accusation might first appear to have more likeli- 
 hood of just cause than she did find therein,'^ — in other 
 words, that Murray's case against his sister was not suffi- 
 cient to justify the necessity of her appearance. There was 
 more shuffling, more evasion on the part of Elizabeth and 
 Cecil, until on the 6th of December Mary's Commissioners 
 gave notice that they would go no further until they had 
 received " a resolute and direct answer " to the Queen's de- 
 mand. There was no " The Bishop coldly said " in the 
 
BOOK OF ARTICLES. 
 
 253 
 
 case. On the contrary, the two acting Commissioners, 
 Leslie and Lord Merries, warmly, but with dignity, solemnly 
 protested " that in case your lordships proceed in the con- 
 trary, that whatever has been, or shall be done hereafter, 
 shall not prejudge in any manner of way our mistress and 
 sovereign's honor, person, crown, and estate ; and we for 
 our part dissolve and discharge this present conference, 
 having special command thereto by our said sovereign in 
 case aforesaid." 
 
 Elizabeth, as we have seen, did not dare allow Mary to 
 be heard in defense personally and publicly, nor did she 
 dare produce the alleged evidence against her. The con- 
 ference thus ended by the withdrawal of the Commissioners, 
 it looked as though the prosecution must fail. But Cecil 
 was equal to the occasion. He persuaded Mary's Com- 
 missioners that the form of their protest should be amended, 
 knowing full well that it could only be done on consulta- 
 tion and with loss of time. It was amended and returned 
 on the 9th December. But meantime, taking advantage 
 of their departure, he swiftly had Murray summoned on 
 the same day to produce his proofs. Murray appeared, and, 
 safe in Elizabeth's encouragements and the absence of 
 Mary's Commissioners, produced — not the casket-letters, 
 but what he called a " Book of Articles " — a collection of 
 all the slanders ever uttered against his sister, set forth in 
 style and language much after the form of Buchanan's 
 *' Detection." Among them was the Alloa story, sailing 
 with pirates, the Jedburgh fable, notorious adultery with 
 Bothwell, the poisoning of Darnley, etc. 
 
 The proceedings of the 6th December closed with 
 Murray's leaving in the hand of the Commissioners »..s 
 Book of Articles, which is as vile a piece of composition as 
 the " Detection," and that is saying much. With calm 
 Scotch indignation, Mr. Hosack thus comments on Murray's 
 act : — 
 
 " What are we to think of the man who could thus, before a 
 
254 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 foreign, and certainly not a friendly tribunal, deliberately slander 
 the .sister who had loaded him with benefits V And what are we 
 to think of the historian who invariably represents him to his 
 readers as the purest of patriots and the most unselfish of men ? 
 The prejudices and the profession of Robertson as a minister of 
 the Church of Scotland naturally induced him to take the most 
 favorable view of the character of Murray ; yet he does not 
 hesitate to condemn, with just severity, his ingratitude to his 
 sister, his servility to Elizabeth, and his treachery to Norfolk. 
 Of modern historians, Mr. Froude alone regards the Scottish re- 
 gent with unmixed admiration." 
 
 On the 7th December,^ Murray reappeared before the 
 Commissioners, who, meantime, " heard the foresaid Book 
 of Articles thoroughly -red unto them the night before," 
 and had just again read the three first chapters. Murray 
 and his colleagues now asked the Commissioners to show 
 them if in any part of these articles exhibited they con- 
 ceived any doubt, or would hear any other proof, which they 
 trusted needed not, considering the circumstances thereof 
 were for the most notorious to the world." We have seen 
 Murray at York, coolly asking the Commissioners for an 
 assurance that they wo^dd accept his copies as proofs. 
 Failing in this, he now has what is well styled " the ef- 
 frontery" to ask them to accept, instead of proof, the mon- 
 strous catalogue of unverified accusations contained in his 
 Book of Articles ! 
 
 It may well be imagined that this proposition did not at 
 all meet Cecil's views. Two objects were to be attained 
 for Elizabeth, the first in accordance with the advice of 
 the Duke of Sussex, the second set forth in Knollys' letter 
 to Cecil of October 20th. 
 
 First, " No end can be made good for England except 
 
 1 The minutes of the proceeduigs of the Commissioners on the 7th De- 
 cember long supposed to be lost, have lately been found in the Record 
 Office by I\h'. Hosack, who has also recovered the" Book of Articles from 
 among the Hopetoun IMSS. In the present chapter, free use has been 
 made of Mr. Hosack's work, which presents the clearest and most reliable 
 account of the proceedings at Westminster yet written. 
 
A SMALL GILT COFFER. 
 
 255 
 
 the person of the Scotch Queen be detained, by one means 
 or other, in England." 
 
 Second, " I see not how her majesty can witli honour 
 and safety detain this Queen, unless she be utterly disgraced 
 to the world,i\.n([ the contrary party be thereby maintained." 
 
 The breach between the Queen of Scots and the lords 
 must be made irreparable, and this could only be effected 
 by forcing Murray's hand and compelling him to produce 
 his proofs. Cecil therefore answered that the Commis- 
 sioners were merely there to report to her majesty " of 
 such things as should be on either part produced." An 
 attempt was made to press the Act of Parlian^ent as suf- 
 ficient proof, but that also fiiiled. " Whereupon the said 
 Earle and his colleagues pausing a while did withdraw them- 
 selves." After some private consultation, they returned, 
 and with protestations of loyalty and affection towards their 
 sovereign, they produced " a small gilt coffer, not fully one 
 foot long, being garnished in many places with the Ro- 
 man letter F under a crown, wherein were certain letters 
 and writings," etc., describing it as the same left by Both- 
 well, and sent for by one George Dalgleish " who was taken 
 by the Earl of Morton." All this Morton there sitting as 
 one of the Commissioners avowed upon his oath to be 
 true, " and the writings to be the very same, without any 
 manner of change." 
 
 This gilt coffer is of wonderful elasticity, and as magical 
 in its capacity as one of those wonderful receptacles of 
 professional magicians, which contain anything you may 
 ask for. It is averred upon the oath of Morton, that the 
 writings- are the very same found in it when taken from 
 Dalgleish, " without any manner of change." And yet, 
 this same casket contained, when produced at York, two 
 papers not now found in it.^ 
 
 1 On Murray's first report to the Spanish Ambassador, we had " three 
 sheets of paper," then we have reported " her private letters," and in due 
 course of time the casket itself, the stanzas, the bonds, and the sonnets ap-' 
 
256 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 They then presented (outside the casket) two contracts 
 of marriage, the record of Bothwell's trial, and the sen- 
 tence of divorce between Both well and his wife, and from 
 the casket the two Glasgow letters " written in French^ and 
 in Roman hand, which they avowed to be a letter of the 
 Queen's own hand sent to Bothwell." 
 
 On the 8th December were produced "seven several 
 writings, written in French, in the like Roman hand — 
 and avowed by them to be written by the same Queen." 
 " Which seven writings being copied, were read in French, 
 and a due collation made thereof, as near as could, by read- 
 ing and inspection, and made to accord with the originals, 
 which the said Earl of Murray required to be redelivered, 
 and did thereupon deliver the copies being collationed." 
 
 Thus Murray took away the originals and left copies only 
 for the examination of the Commissioners. But two im- 
 portant documents showm to the Commissioners at York 
 had now disappeared. One was the Queen's warrant to 
 the nobility to sign the Ainslie bond, the other referring to 
 the altercation between Lord Robert Stuart and Darnley. 
 Both these papers, if genuine, were damaging to the Queen, 
 the bond in particular ; and the York Commissioners ex- 
 pressly reported that they had seen proof in this bond, 
 " which was now shown unto us," that the nobles had re- 
 fused to sign the Ainslie bond until thus authorized. The 
 fact of this withdrawal was significant, but, as Mary was 
 not represented in the conference, nothing was said of the 
 suspicious omission. And here we close comment on these 
 so-called casket-letters with the admirable summing-up of 
 a writer of the last century : — 
 
 " The internal, the external evidence ; their variations in sub- 
 stance, their variations in form, their variations in words, and 
 
 pear gradually and successively. Then comes a diminishing process by 
 the withdrawal of two documents at York, and the suppression of a letter. 
 Yet all the while it is the same casket and contents as found upon Dalgleish. 
 Truly a "juggling box." 
 
STRANGE SCRUTINY. 
 
 257 
 
 their variations even in language ; the history of the rebel con- 
 duct, the history of Elizabeth's proceedings at the conferences in 
 England concerning them ; their contradictions to facts, their re- 
 pugnances to common sense, their inconsistencies with chronology, 
 and their violent opposition to themselves and to each other, all 
 show them to be forgeries, with an accumulative weight of testi- 
 mony." 
 
 On the 9th, the amended protest of Mary's Commission- 
 ers was received, but they continued absent in conformity 
 with their protest. And now we find the English Commis- 
 sioners busy reading — not the originals — not French 
 copies, nor Scotch translations, but copies " duly translated 
 into English." The English versions of the two Glasgow 
 letters still in the Record Office, marked with Cecil's hand, 
 are, almost certainly, the copies used by the Commissioners. 
 Of the Scotch copies no more is heard. Nelson and Craw- 
 ford then presented their written depositions, and the latter 
 recounted the conversation he had with the Queen on her 
 coming to Glasgow. These men were neither questioned nor 
 cross-questioned, nor was any test made of the accuracy of 
 their evidence. Murray then presented his journal. Then 
 came a pause in the proceedings, although not a word has 
 yet been said of the genuineness of the letters alleged to 
 be the Queen's. Something was suggested as to laying 
 the matter before Parliament, but it was quickly silenced, 
 and determination taken to submit the results of the con- 
 ference to six noblemen, who were immediately summoned 
 to Hampton Court. 
 
 On the 14th December, the Earls of Northumberland, 
 Westmoreland, Shrewsbury, Worcester, Huntingdon, and 
 Woolwich heard, with the Privy Council, report of the pro- 
 ceedings at York and Westminster, and all Murray's papers 
 were laid before them. The casket-letters were, according 
 to Cecil's journal, " duly conferred and compared, for the 
 manner of writing and fashion of orthography with sundry 
 other letters, long since heretofore written and sent by the 
 17 
 
258 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 said Queen of Scots to the Queen's majesty, in collation of 
 which no difference was found." 
 
 This is the only scrutiny — if scrutiny it can be called — 
 these letters ever underwent. No one had been allowed 
 to see these letters in Scotland. No one but the English 
 Commissioners had been allowed to see them at York. 
 From hundreds of persons intimately acquainted with the 
 Queen's handwriting, scores of witnesses could have been 
 produced to prove it, if hers it was. 
 
 Were these Earls the accomplished experts referred to ? 
 And in what manner was their examination made ? Mr. 
 Froude says, " they were examined long and minutely by 
 each and every of the lords who were present," but does 
 not inform us upon what authority his information is based. 
 We prefer the testimony of a contemporary witness, Cecil, 
 Elizabeth's prime minister, the chief manager and director 
 of such examination as there was. He says: — 
 
 " It is to be noted that at the time of the producing, showing, 
 and reading of all those foresaid writings, there was no special 
 choice nor regard had to the order of the producing thereof; but 
 the whole writings lying altogether upon the council table, the 
 same were, one after another, showed rather hy hap, as the same 
 did lie upon the table, than luith any choice made, as by the na- 
 tures thereof, if time had so served, might have been." 
 
 In introducing these letters to his reader, and forthwith 
 incorporating them into his narrative, Mr. Froude states 
 that they " passed the keenest scrutiny both in England 
 and Scotland. The handwriting was found to resemble 
 so exactly that of the Queen that the most accomplished 
 expert could detect no difference." (viii. 362.) Where and 
 when was the "keenest scrutiny" in Scotland, and who 
 was " the most accomplished expert" we are not informed. 
 The whole question at issue is the genuineness of the let- 
 ters, and practically, that question is not tested by any- 
 thing of historical record. 
 
 The earls, with Cecil and the Privy Council, now de- 
 
CECIL'S FURY. 
 
 259 
 
 liberated as to the testimony laid before them. The most 
 devoted servants of Elizabeth, Cecil, Sadler, Leicester, 
 and Bacon, " declared themselves convinced. Arundel, 
 Norfolk, Clinton, and Sussex contended that the Scottish 
 Queen had a right to be heard in her own defense." Cecil 
 manifested angry violence in insisting on a condemnation, 
 which was refused, and the Secretary's fiiria terrihile was 
 rebuked and checked by some of the peers present.^ Fi- 
 nally, no opinion was reached, while the six earls thanked 
 Queen Elizabeth for imparting the matter to them, add- 
 ing that she was justified in refusing to receive the Scottish 
 Queen as the case stood. 
 
 All this time Mary Stuart was a prisoner far away at Bol- 
 ton Castle in Yorkshire. The winter was unusually early 
 and severe, and the roads were blocked up with frozen 
 snow. On the 19th of December, she first heard of Murray's 
 accusations made before the Commissioners on the 26th 
 November, and instantly wrote, instructing them to renew 
 the conference which, by her letter of November 22d, she 
 had directed them to break off, and forthwith to charge 
 the Earl of Moray, and his accomplices, with the murder of 
 the King, for, in accusing her they had falsely, traitorously, 
 and wickedly lied, " imi^uting unto us maliciously the crime 
 whereof they themselves are authors, inventors, doers, and 
 some of them the actual perpetrators." Further, she in- 
 structed her Commissioners to demand " the inspection 
 and doubles (copies) of all they have produced against us, 
 and that we may see the alleged principal writings, if they 
 have any, produced, and, with God's grace, we shall make 
 sic answer thereto that our innocence shall be known to 
 our good sister, and to all other princes ; " and concludes 
 with instructions to charge her accusers " as authors and 
 
 1 " Dichos senores havian mostrado algun valor y contrastado un poco la 
 fiiria terribile con que el Secretario Cecil queria perder aquella seiiora." — 
 Bimanms MS. quoted by Lingard. 
 
260 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 inventors of the said crime they would impute to us," 
 holding herself ready to prove the same.^ 
 
 Mary's instructions of December 19th were represented 
 to Elizabeth on the 25th of December, and the Commis- 
 sioners repeated the request "to have such writings as 
 were produced against their mistress." To which Eliza- 
 beth — held by many to have been an " admirable actress " 
 — replied that she thought the request " very reasonable," 
 and was pleased to hear that " her good sister would make 
 answer in that manner for the defense of her honor." 
 
 WESTMINSTER. — PART SECOND. 
 
 " There had been nothing sufficiently produced nor shown by them 
 against the Queen their sovereign." — Decision on Westininsier Examina* 
 tion. 
 
 The Queen of Scots at Lochleven had demanded that 
 her cause should be decided by the Scottish Parliament. 
 At York she asked for a public investigation before Eliza- 
 beth, the whole of her nobility, and the foreign ambassadors. 
 At Westminster she waived this right, and offered to meet 
 the charges before the Commissioners ; expecting in all 
 these cases, as a simple matter of right, to be allowed in- 
 spection of the pretended written proof against her. But 
 all in vain. 
 
 1 The historian Burton has a new and entirely original theory as to the 
 casket-letters. It is that they were not at the time of their production 
 charged to be forgeries. "It is never distinctly asserted," he says, "as it 
 has so often been in later times, that the papers brought to support these 
 charges were forged." This^ is certainly a remarkable statement to make 
 in face of the solemn declaration of thirty-five prelates and peers of Scot- 
 land, that these very papers "are devised by themselves (the Queen's 
 accusers) in some principal and substantious clauses," and in presence of 
 Mary Stuart's own repeated declarations to the Commissioners at York and 
 at Westminster, that these papers " are false and feigned, forged and invented 
 by themselves to my dishonor and slander.^' 
 
ELIZABETH'S DEVICE. 
 
 261 
 
 She now threw down the bold challenge of an offer to 
 prove the forgery if they would but furnish her with copies 
 of the pretended letters. On the 7th of January, 1569, 
 another attempt was made by Mary's order to obtain a 
 sight of the papers produced by Murray. Her Commis- 
 sioners informed Elizabeth in person of their mission, with 
 fresh instructions to accuse Murray and the lords as the 
 authors, promoters, and perpetrators of the crime of which 
 they falsely accused her, and that she " desired the writings 
 produced by her rebellious subjects, or at least the copies 
 thereof, to be delivered unto them, that their mistress might 
 fully answer thereto, as was desired." Now Elizabeth 
 " was an admirable actress ; rarely, perhaps, on the world's 
 stage has there been a more skillful player," and she sweetly 
 answered that she " would take time to consider the de- 
 mand," and give a reply in " two or three days." 
 
 Meantime a well conceived and admirably arranged plot 
 had been devised to turn the position, which was full of 
 difficulty. The prophecy of Sussex had come to pass. 
 Mary had been accused of Darnley's murder, and she had 
 answered with a demand of personal inspection of the evi- 
 dence and by charging her accusers of the crime. By 
 this time Cecil and Elizabeth had seen for themselves that 
 Mary's proof would judicially fall best out, and hence the 
 new scheme, which had apparently every element of suc- 
 cess. It was to induce Mary to resign her crown. Eliza- 
 beth begins by writing to Sir Francis KnoUys, Mary's jailer, 
 to suggest it to Mary " as if from yourself," and to inform 
 Lord Scrope " with great secrecy " that he had done so, as 
 Mary would doubtless confer with Scrope on the matter. 
 Scrope and Knollys had first met Mary at Carlisle, and 
 their reports to Elizabeth show that greatly as they admired 
 the Scottish Queen's grace, beauty, and accomplishments, 
 they were more profoundly impressed with her high moral 
 and mental qualities. They describe her as having "an 
 eloquent tongue and a discreet head, with stout courage and 
 
262 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 a liberal heart;" and Knollys afterwards writes: " Surely 
 she is a rare woman, for as no flattery can abuse her, so no 
 plain speech seems to offend her if she thinks the speaker 
 an honest man." These men had gained much of Mary's 
 confidence, and Lady Scrope was the sister of the Duke 
 of Norfolk, who was then a suitor for Mary's hand. Nor 
 was this all. The Bishop of Ross, Mary's Commissioner 
 and trusted adviser, was persuaded by Elizabeth and Cecil 
 to give his mistress such counsel as should tend to the 
 furtherance of the cunning plot. What representations 
 were made by Cecil to the Bishop, and whether Elizabeth 
 played comedy or tragedy on the occasion, was never 
 known. 
 
 The trap is ready and there was nothing now to be done 
 but drive in the hunted hare. Thus it was managed. Eliz- 
 abeth writes a letter to Mary full of sympathy, earnestly 
 entreating her for the sake of her own honor to make 
 answer to the charges which were presented against her. 
 To this is added a chapter in praise of the Bishop of Ross, 
 his fidelity, intelligence, and zeal, " for in our judgment, 
 we think ye have not any in loyalty and faithfulness can 
 overmatch him." 
 
 Now hear Knollys. On the 26th December he reports 
 to Elizabeth a conversation with Mary in which she com- 
 plained that Elizabeth had broken her promise by allowing 
 Murray to appear at Westminster, while she was detained 
 a prisoner at Bolton Castle. That on receipt of her maj- 
 esty's letter of the 22d, " with a memorial of certain rea- 
 sons to induce this Queen to resign her crown to her son," 
 he " entered into conference with her, and said, ' If you 
 shall deny to answer thereby you shall provoke the Queen 
 my mistress to take you as condemned, and to publish the 
 same to your utter disgrace and infamy, especially in 
 England of all other places ; ' and after tiiis sort I began 
 to strike as gr^eat terror into her as I could." 
 
 Mary Stuart guilty must have been intimidated, but 
 
GALLANTLY AT BAY. 
 
 263 
 
 Mary Stuart innocent was not in the slightest degree 
 alarmed. She answered stoutly," continues Knollys, " as 
 she Avould make all other princes know how evil she was 
 handled, coming upon trust into this realm ; and saith she, 
 ' 1 am sure the Queen will not condemn me, hearing only 
 mine adversaries^ and not me.' " Knollys then advised her 
 that the best way to save her honor, and put an end to the 
 charges made against her was to offer the resignation of 
 her crown to her son, " she herself to remain in England a 
 convenient time." Nobody better than Elizabeth knew 
 how easily Mary could be deceived and betrayed under the 
 mask of friendship. It came to pass precisely as she had 
 foreseen, that Mary, deprived of friends and counsel, would 
 con§de in Lord Scrope. We continue Knolly's report : 
 " In the afternoon she began to speak with my Lord Scrope, 
 and she told him what advice I had given her herein. 
 ' And surely,' saith she, ' I think he doth not thus advise 
 me to the intent I should be entrapped and abused.' 
 And my Lord Scrope, being made privy by me beforehand, 
 did also very secretly persuade her in friendly manner 
 accordingly ; and although she is too wise hastily to be 
 persuaded in such a case as this is, yet Lord Scrope and I 
 are in some hopes that if the Bishop of Ross at his com- 
 ing will secretly persuade her hereunto, that she will yield 
 herein." 
 
 The Bishop of Ross did not come, but wrote a letter to 
 Mary, which she received four days after the conversation 
 with Knollys and Scrope. On the 31st of December Mary 
 again conversed with Knollys and Scrope, listened to all 
 they had to advance in favor of her resignation, and re- 
 plied that she would give them an answer in two days. 
 She had heard all they had to say with attention and her 
 never failing courtesy ; they knew that she accepted it as 
 friendly advice ; and they were fully advised that they had 
 been powerfully seconded by the Bishop of Ross. They 
 felt certain she must yield. And why should she not yield ? 
 
264 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Dethroned, imprisoned, hunted down by calumny and per- 
 secution, without hope from France, for Catherine de 
 Medicis was her bitter enemy ; without hope from Spain, 
 for Philip had not forgiven her refusal to sign the Catholic 
 League ; without a friend to whom she might turn for coun- 
 sel, since her long trusted advocate Leslie himself advised 
 the resignation, — how could she possibly avoid it ? Pining 
 for freedom and for peace, and told that her resignation 
 would insure them, we might naturally suppose that there 
 could be for the matter but the one solution sought by 
 Elizabeth. 
 
 Mary had nought to consult but her own honor, her own 
 clear head, and her own stout heart. She had promised an 
 answer in two days from the 30th December. She was 
 ready with it at the time indicated. This it was. She told 
 Knollys and Scrope that she would not resign, and would 
 prefer death to the ignominious terms proposed. To London 
 she wrote : " As to my resignation, I entreat you to trouble 
 me no further concerning it, for I am deliberately resolved 
 to die sooner than give it ; and the last words I shall utter 
 in my life shall be those of a Queen of Scotland " et la 
 derniere parole que je ferai en ma vie sera d'une Reyne 
 d'Ecosse"). To her Commissioners she wrote the instruc- 
 tions which we have already seen were represented to 
 Elizabeth on the 7th of January.^ From first to last, Mary 
 never suspected the part played by these two English 
 noblemen, Knollys and Scrope, and she left Bolton Castle 
 believing they had acted in the matter solely as her 
 friends. 
 
 On the manner in which Mr. Froude has treated this 
 important incident we refrain from comment, but at the 
 same time very strongly recommend the reader to give his 
 version of it an attentive persual. 
 
 1 " Cecil had been led to believe that his scheme would prove successful, 
 and that with his pack of treacherous Scots and servile colleagues he had 
 fairly hunted down his quarry. But she stood gallantly at bay and bade him 
 do his worst." — HosacJc, p. 460. 
 
PROSECUTION FAILS. 
 
 265 
 
 Cecil's disappointment can well be imagined. The posi- 
 tion was embarrassing in the highest degree. On the 9th 
 of Jannary (Sunday) he suddenly summoned Mary's Com- 
 missioners to meet him. They came, and found the Earls 
 of Leicester, Arundel, and Pembroke, and the Duke of 
 Norfolk with him. Cecil brought up the question of Mary's 
 resignation for discussion, which was closed by the declara- 
 tion of the Commissioners that the Queen of Scots " would 
 never consent to resign her crown in any way, nor upon 
 any condition." 
 
 On the 30th of December Knollys and Scrope, as we have 
 seen, were promised, " in two days," an answer by Mary. 
 Of course they received it as promised. On the 7th of 
 January Mary's Commissioners, as we have seen, were prom- 
 ised an answer by Elizabeth " in two or three days." Of 
 course they did not receive it, for on the 10th of January, 
 instead of furnishing the promised " copies," Murray and 
 his colleagues were summoned to Hampton Court, informed 
 by Cecil that " forasmuch as there had been nothing pro- 
 duced against them, as yet, that may impair their honor 
 or allegiance ; and, on the other part, there had been 
 
 NOTHING SUFFICIENTLY PRODUCED NOR SHOWN BY THEM 
 
 AGAINST THE QuEEN THEIR SOVEREIGN, whereby the Queeu 
 of England should conceive or take any evil ojnnion of the 
 Queen her good sister for anything yet seen ; ^ and there being 
 alleged by the Earl of Murray the unquiet state and dis- 
 order of the realm of Scotland, now in his absence, her 
 majesty thinketh meet not to restrain any further the said 
 earl and his adherents' liberty, but suffer him and them 
 at their pleasure to depart," etc. 
 
 This has well been called an "astounding announce- 
 ment." And yet it may be said that the declaration is, 
 practically, the fulfillment of Elizabeth's promise to furnish 
 copies of the evidence against Mary, inasmuch as it de- 
 clares this evidence to be worthless. The case made 
 1 These last four words added by Elizabeth. 
 
266 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 against Mary lias been heard, and is, by this solution, ad- 
 mitted to have fallen to the ground. But Murray and his 
 associates are now accused. That alters the case, for there 
 is no intention to hear any testimony against them, as was 
 clearly shown on the following day (January 11th), when, 
 in presence of Murray and his associates, Cecil asked 
 Mary's Commissioners if they would accuse Murray and 
 his colleagues of the murder of Darnley. They replied 
 that they were expressly commandedhy their mistress so to do, 
 and likewise to answer the calumnies against herself, pro- 
 vided they were furnished with " copies of the pretended 
 writings given in against their mistress, which they divers 
 times required of the Queen's majesty and her council^ but 
 they have not as yet obtained the same / and how soon {as 
 soon as) they received the copies thereof, she would answer 
 thereto in defense of her innocence." 
 
 To this there came no answer from Cecil, except such 
 reply as could be found in his immediately, within twenty- 
 four hours thereafter (January 12th), according Murray 
 and his friends formal leave to depart. And thus the 
 Regent hurried off to Scotland with his box of letters, and 
 a reward of five thousand pounds sterling, " for attempting 
 to destroy his sister's character by means of proofs which 
 Elizabeth, by the mouth of her secretary, declared to be 
 absolutely worthless." (Hosack, p. 467.) 
 
 On the 13th of January, Mary's Commissioners again 
 presented themselves at Hampton Court, and reiterated 
 their demand for copies of the papers produced against 
 their Queen. Cecil, now, had a new device to obtain 
 delay. It was, that the request could only be complied 
 with on condition that their Queen signed an agreement 
 "promising that she would answer to the said writings and 
 articles laid to her charge without any exception." Thus, 
 on the 10th of January, he declares that the charges 
 against her are groundless, that nothing had been proved 
 against her. On the 12th of January he authorizes Murray 
 
 0 
 
RECOIL FROM INQUIRY. 
 
 267 
 
 to depart with his worthless proofs, and on the next day 
 he requires Murk's written promise to answer the charges 
 thus dechired groundK\ss, on proofs found worthless, and 
 sent out of the way ! The answer of the Commissioners 
 was short, sharp, and decisive. The Queen of Scots, said 
 they, had already in two writings, signed by herself, and 
 shown to the Queen of England, declared herself ready to 
 uiake answer whenever she was furnished with the papers 
 produced against her, or even with copies. This crushing 
 statement they followed up with complaint that Murray 
 and his associates, although accused by their mistress with 
 the murder of her husband, had been allowed to return to 
 Scotland. Cecil, in reply, had not another word to say 
 about the written promise from Mary, and remarked that 
 as to Murray, he had promised to return if his presence 
 should be required at any time, " but in the mean time," 
 he added, "the Queen of Scotland could not be suffered 
 to depart, for divers respects." In other words, the 
 charges against her, admitted by themselves to be ground- 
 less, should be taken as true, and she should be held a 
 prisoner in any event. The proceedings then closed with 
 a notarial protest of Mary's Commissioners against her 
 detention, while the rebel lords were allowed to return to 
 Scotland. 
 
 The reader thus clearly sees — unless he accepts rhet- 
 oric and invention for documentary evidence — that it was 
 Elizabeth, Cecil, and Murray — not Mary Stuart, who, 
 says Hume, "recoiled from the inquiry at the very critical 
 moment when a scrutiny was demanded of their evidence, 
 and when the truth could have been fully cleared," and 
 that, by so doing, they have ratified every argument and 
 proof of forgery that is now brought against the casket- 
 letters. 
 
 The attention of the reader is requested to the de- 
 vice of Mr. Froude in placing his mangled -account of 
 the proceedings of January 13 (p. 390) before Cecil's 
 
268 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 declaration of January 10 (p. 391), concealing the date 
 of that declaration, and thus making a hopeless muddle 
 of his already confused narration. It is constantly insinu- 
 ated that Mary had no real desire, nor did she make any 
 serious attempt to obtain copies of the casket-letters. We 
 have seen what efforts she has made to obtain them, and 
 here is another. 
 
 Mary now laid before the French Ambassador at 
 London an account of her fruitless efforts to obtain, at 
 least, copies of the papers produced by Murray, and the 
 Ambassador (La Mothe Fenelon) expressed to Eliza- 
 beth his hope and belief that she would see justice done 
 between the Scottish Queen and her rebellious subjects, 
 and that she would cause the papers which they had 
 produced at Westminster to be furnished her.^ Fenelon 
 says that she listened to him with visible emotion, and 
 promised that on the following day the writings should 
 be placed in the hands of Mary's Commissioners. (Que 
 le lendemain elle accorderait aux depputez de la dicte 
 dame la dicte communication.) Now, Elizabeth " was 
 an admirable actress," and having played her little 
 part for the day, thought no more of Fenelon or of 
 Mary Stuart. Patient and polite, the French Ambassa- 
 dor waited not one day but ten days, and on the 30th of 
 January took occasion to remind the English Queen of 
 her promise. "The accomplished actress," on this occa- 
 sion also showed " visible emotion," and, having her cue 
 from Cecil, flew into a passion, asserting that Mary had 
 written a letter to some one complaining of her gross 
 partiality at the conferences, and charging Murray with 
 designs upon her crown, etc. It appears to be doubtful 
 that such a letter was ever written by Mary. But if it had 
 
 1- With daring intrepidity of statement Mr. Froude assures his reader 
 (.ix. 400), that Mary " did everything in her power to prevent them (the 
 letters) from being examined." In so doing, he simply furnishes his own 
 explanation of his reasons for deliberately suppressing her reiterated de- 
 mand to meet and answer them. 
 
THE REACTION. 
 
 2G9 
 
 been, it does not afTect tlie absurdity of Elizabeth's pretext, 
 nor the inexcusable grossiiess of her demeanor. 
 
 The result of the proceedings was, necessarily, a strong 
 reaction in favor of Mary. It was plain there was no 
 proof against her. The majority of the English Commis- 
 sioners had been satisfied of the worthlessness of the 
 casket-letters. The Duke of Norfolk, who was of both 
 conferences, York and Westminster, was anxious to obtain 
 Mary Stuart's hand, and the Earls of Northumberland and 
 Westmoreland found in them proof of but one thing, and 
 that was Murray's utter vileness. But a few weeks later, 
 and we find among the open supporters of Mary the Earls 
 of Arundel, Westmoreland, Pembroke, Northumberland, 
 Southampton, Derby, Sussex, and Cumberland, the Lords 
 Clinton and Lumley, the Marquis of Winchester, and Sir 
 Nicholas Throckmorton, the majority of whom devoted 
 the remainder of their lives to her cause. 
 
 Northumberland and Westmoreland were fully advised 
 of the indignation of the best men of the north at Murray's 
 infamous conduct. Hence they made no objection what- 
 ever to a resolution of the leading gentry of Durham and 
 Yorkshire to attack Murray and his band on their return 
 to Scotland. But the wily Regent had a cunning device. 
 He threw himself into Norfolk's way,^ wormed himself into 
 his confidence with protestations of friendship to himself 
 and regard for his sister, and through Norfolk obtained from 
 Westmoreland a safe conduct through the northern coun- 
 ties, — Westmoreland having previously inquired of Mary 
 Stuart if she consented to it, which she unhesitatingly did. 
 Norfolk was completely deceived by Murray, gave him his 
 whole confidence, and at parting said : " P^arl of Murray, 
 thou hast Norfolk's life in thy hands." Prophetically and 
 sadly true. He had Norfolk's life in his hands, and he 
 basely betrayed it to Elizabeth. 
 
 1 We are aware that Mr. Froude says "he consented to an interview," 
 but that is of no consequence by the side of Murray's own account of the 
 meeting. 
 
CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 CAPTIVITY. 
 
 " Now blooms the lily by the bank, 
 The primrose on the brae ; 
 The hawthorn 's budding in the glen, 
 
 And milk-white is the slae; 
 The meanest hind in fair Scotland 
 
 May rove their sweets amang, 
 But I, the Queen o' a' Scotland, 
 Maun lie in prison Strang." 
 
 Robert Burns. 
 
 Mary Stuart's position on the termination of the West- 
 minster Conference cannot be better described than she 
 herself in terms of truthful eloquence stated it in a letter 
 addressed to Elizabeth, January 22, 1569 : — 
 
 " I cannot but deplore my evil fortune, seeing you have been 
 pleased not only to deny me your presence, causing me to be de- 
 clared unworthy of it by your nobles, but suffered me also to be 
 torn to pieces by my rebels Avithout making reply to what I had 
 alleged against them ; neither allowing me to have copies of their 
 false accusations, nor opportunity to disprove them ; permitting them 
 to retire, virtually absolving them, and confirming them in their 
 usurped, pretended regency, and covertly throwing the blame on 
 me, by condemning me unheard, detaining my ministers, and or- 
 dering me to be removed by force, without being informed what 
 has been resolved on my atfixirs, why I am to be sent to another, 
 place, when I shall be allowed to depart, how I am to be treated, 
 nor for what purpose I am detained — all support denied, and 
 my requests refused." 
 
 The queenly prisoner was forced to quit Bolton Castle in 
 midwinter, for her new prison at Tutbury. Mary and her 
 friend Lady Livingstone, the voluntary companion of her 
 
THE LIVINGSTONES. 
 
 271 
 
 exile, were botli sick and were t^ken in a litter, the other 
 ladies travelled on horseback. It was a desolate and dreary 
 journey of eight days over wretched roads ; and Lady Liv- 
 ingstone was left at Kotherhani, too sick to proceed. This 
 is the Lady Livingstone at whose house Mary passed a 
 night on her way from Edinburgh to Glasgow to visit 
 Darnley, and with whom she previously spent a day in or- 
 der to be present as godmother at the baptism of Lady 
 Livinostone's child. In the first forored Glasgow letter, her 
 husband, Lord Livingstone, is described " at supper " jest- 
 ing with Lady Reres in the Queen's presence on the guilty 
 intimacy of the latter with Bothwell, bantering the Queen 
 on her fondness for Bothwell, and on her visiting her 
 sick husband, at vvliich pleasantries the Queen is made 
 to express herself pleased and flattered, to lean upon him 
 bodily at the fireside, and ask him to whom he refers, to 
 which Livingstone in reply, — she is made to write, — 
 " thristit her body ; " that is to say, " nudged her majesty 
 in the ribs." ^ Comment is not needed. Lord and Lady 
 Livingstone w^ere both Protestants ; they both followed Mary 
 Stuart into exile, and shared her exile and misfortune to 
 the last. It may here be remarked that numbers of the 
 ladies of the Scotch aristocracy earnestly entreated of 
 Elizabeth permission to wait upon Mary in her prison. 
 Amona them were the wife and dauojhter of the Earl of 
 Atholl, Lady Lethington, and the two ladies Mowbray, 
 daughters of the rebel laird of Barnbogle.^ 
 
 1 " The colors are too glaring and too gross. Not only is the Queen rep- 
 resented with the morals of a Messalina, and with manners that would dis- 
 grace a kitchen wench, but she actuall}' describes to her paramour her 
 suspicious familiarities with another man." — Hosnch, p. 199. 
 
 2 " It must be obvious to common sense, that if Mary had been so lost to 
 shame and decency as her libelcr, Buclianan, pretends, and the forged let- 
 ters infer, her service would have been deserted in disgust by every noble 
 Scotch lady, especially those who were of the reformed faith. Can it be 
 supposed that a man of Lord Livingstone's high rank and unsullied honor, 
 a leading member of the Congregation withal, would have ruined his 
 fortune and outraged conscituice and propriety by supporting her cause, 
 
272 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 In stating (ix. 458) tlie proposition made to Mary with 
 the approval of Cecil and Elizabeth, Mr. Froude forgets 
 to add the names of Norfolk and Arundel to those of 
 Pembroke and Leicester, as its originators, and studioiisly 
 conceals the extraordinary inducement held out to her to 
 accejDt the conditions proposed. It was that Mary should 
 be restored as Queen of Scotland, and be confirmed in her 
 claim as next in successio?i to the crown of England. True, 
 he says that " if she should not ratify .the treaty of Leith, 
 it should not be insisted on" (ix. 457), from which, in 
 strictness, may possibly be drawn the conclusion that her 
 succession to the English crown is admitted, although the 
 concealment on the historian's part is elaborate. Small 
 wonder that he makes this desperate effort ; small wonder 
 that this matter troubles him so deeply. This proposition 
 made by the four earls, " conceived in a spirit of undoubted 
 loyalty to Elizabeth," and composed by Cecil himself (ix. 
 459), was warmly supported by the Earls of Shrewsbury, 
 Northumberland, Westmoreland, and Bedford, and Sir 
 Nicholas Throckmorton, the leading nobility and states- 
 men of England. The two last named knew Mary well, 
 and Bedford, as we have seen, was in Scotland just before 
 Darnley's murder, and these men declared themselves not 
 ouly in favor of restoring Mary to her throne, but as ready 
 to recognize her as heir presumptive of the English crown} 
 
 and permitting his beautiful and virtuous wife, the mother of his children, 
 to wait upon her, share her perils and her wanderings, and pai-take her 
 prisons without reward, had there been the slightest grounds for the odious 
 accusations with which the traitors who had murdered her husband, given 
 her over as a prey to Bothweli, and usurped her throne, sought to justify 
 their proceedings and cloak their own crimes? " — Miss Strickland's Mary, 
 vol. vi. p. 326. 
 
 1 " It is obvious," says Mr. Hosack, " that their conduct at this time can 
 admit of only two explanations. Every one of the men who gave his 
 assent to the proposal made to the Scottish Queen, had, with the exception 
 of Throckmorton, a very short time before seen, either at Westminster or at 
 Hampton Court, the whole of the evidence produced against her; and if the}' 
 believed it to be genuine, they were so utterly lo-t to all sense of honor and 
 shame as to recommend that a murderers of 4 he worst description should 
 
UV.Ul PRESUMPTIVE. 
 
 273 
 
 Some twenty pages later, Mr. Fronde is forced into an 
 acknowledgment — still veiled — of the readiness in i^ng- 
 land to acknowledge his " nuu deress of Kirk o' Field," his 
 ''ferocions animal," his "snake," his "panther," his "wild- 
 cat," his " brnte," as the coming Queen of England ! He 
 stales (ix. 477) : — 
 
 " Still the stream ran so violently, that on the 27th of August 
 a vote was carried in full council for the settlement of the suc- 
 cession by the marriage of the Queen of Scots to some English 
 nobleman ; and many peers, according to Don Gueran, the great- 
 est in the land, set their hands to a bond to stand by Norfolk in 
 carrying the resolution into effect." 
 
 What was thought in F'rance, Spain, and Italy, of 
 Mary's innocence,^ may be deduced from the facts that 
 " France already had its eye upon her, as a fit match, 
 could she escape, for the Duke of Anjou" (ix. 484) ; Philip 
 of Spain was desirous of bringing about her marriage with 
 his brother, Don John of Austria, soon to be the victor of 
 Lepanto ; and Cosmo de Medici was advised from Lon- 
 don, " That it was known to all without the slightest doubt 
 that she was most innocent, and that her accusers were 
 guilty of the deed." (Labanoff, vol. vii. p. 147.) 
 
 Inadvertently, our historian occasionally lets in a ray of 
 light, as, where he says : " Unfortunately for Mary Stuart's 
 
 be acknowledged as the successor of their sovereign. If, on the other hand, 
 they gave, like Elizabeth, no credit to the unverified accusations of Mary's 
 enemies, their conduct is sufficiently explained. On which side the proba- 
 bility lies the reader will determine for himself." — Hosack, p. 482. 
 
 1 Mr. Fronde's curious infelicity of translation again appears here. He 
 makes Elizabeth say to the Spanish Ambassador (ix. 272), that Mary's 
 " ncf/uiltnl should be so contrived that a shadow of guilt should be allowed 
 to remain; .... to declare her entirely innocent would be dangerous," etc. 
 But declare her innocent does not correctly translate it. Si se declaraba su 
 innocencin is the Spanish. To declare a person's innocence is a very dif- 
 ferent thing from declaring that he or she is innocent. Elizabeth knew 
 Mary's innocence, but hesitated to declare it. She might declare her inno- 
 ceyit, knowing her to be guilty. "Acquittal" and "shadow of guilt" are 
 not in the Spanish. To leave a ca«e in doubt (en duhio) is not to leave 
 a shadow of guilt upon it, and justijicacion is not acquitted. 
 18 
 
274 
 
 MAEY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 prospects, she had too many friends. France and Spain 
 both wished her well, but could not trust each other," etc. 
 (X. 48.) 
 
 Mary's answer to the proposition was, Mr. Froude says, 
 "graceful, dignified, self-respecting;" but his handsome 
 compliment is more than neutralized by his ruthless ex- 
 posure of what was passing in her mind at the time, and 
 an enumeration of the wicked projects she formed. " The 
 part was well played," he tells us (ix. 462). Alas ! it is 
 impossible to contend with such an adversary as this. 
 You may prove — contemporary documents and abundant 
 testimony in hand, a -|- b — a certain state of fact as to — 
 Mary Stuart, for instance. You and your documents are 
 contemptuously thrust aside with a psychological diagnosis, 
 and the historian passes on to glorify Drake's piracy, 
 Elizabeth's money-making in the slave-trade, or Cecil's 
 Christian statesmanship at the Tower. 
 
 By the time the scales had fallen from Mary's eyes, Eliz- 
 abeth's art and duplicity had woven a web from which she 
 could not be extricated. Her remaining years of life 
 were one long, heart-sickening struggle against treachery, 
 spies, insult to her person, her reputation, and her faith ;^ 
 confinement, cold, sickness, neuralgic agony, want ; depri- 
 vation of all luxuries, of medical attendance, and of the 
 consolations of religion. At every fresh spasm of alarm 
 on the part of Elizabeth, Mary's prison was changed.^ 
 This, too, frequently in dead of winter, and generally with- 
 out any provision for the commonest conveniences of life. 
 More than once, taken into a naked, cold castle, Mary "s 
 jailers had to rely on the charity of the neighbors for even 
 a bed for their royal prisoner. At Tutbury, her rooms 
 
 1 She wrote from Tutbur}' (November, 1571) to F^nelon, the French Am- 
 bassador, " I had begged for a priest to administer the holy sacrament and 
 to help me relieve my conscience in this condition of mine; and they who 
 carried my letter brought me instead of consolation the diffamatory book of 
 the atheist George Buchanan. 
 
 2 For a list of her English prisons see Appendix No. 10. 
 
VERDICT ON THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 275 
 
 were so dark and comfortless, and the surroundings so 
 filthy — there is no other word for it — that the English 
 physician refused to charge himself with her health. But 
 enough. All know the sad story. 
 
 Any fair recital of Mary Stuart's life during her long 
 imprisonment strongly negatives the worst case that can be 
 made against her. The elevated qualities she displayed 
 during these nineteen years have challenged the sympathiz- 
 ing admiration of posterity. " The most amiable of women," 
 as Hume styles her, was here truly grand in her dignity, 
 her fortitude, and her resignation. It was the contempla- 
 tion of this spectacle which*" so affected the historian Rob- 
 ertson that, although, on insufficient data, he accepts the 
 theory of her guilt, he yet, by a seeunng singular inconsis- 
 tency, enlists our synipathies for her as one who died the 
 death of the innocent. But mere admiration for her noble 
 nature, compassion for her sufferings, indignation at her 
 persecutors, and pity for her fate, are not asked for on an 
 appeal for merely a just verdict on the evidence. In ask- 
 ing this we would eliminate the mawkish palliative of 
 loose talk, touching the influence of the so-called " school 
 of Catherine de Medici," and we would even consent to set 
 aside the really extenuating facts of her extreme youth, 
 inexperience, and friendlessness amid the treasonable plots 
 of the titled villains by whom she was surrounded and be- 
 trayed. The cause of Mary Stuart is sufficiently strong 
 to cliallenge the decision of the sternest justice divorced 
 from mere sympathy. 
 
 But, although Mr. Fronde's "History" has been lauded 
 for "its broad charity, its tender human sympathy, its ever 
 present dignity, its outbursts of truest pathos," — although 
 the historian has spoken in such eloquent terms of touch- 
 ing sensibility of Anne Boleyn — " the tragedy of whose 
 fate has blotted out the remembrance of her sins — if her 
 sins were .indeed, and in reality, more than imaginary,'^ 
 and although in giving expression to such sentiments as 
 
276 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 these, he writes like a man who has a heart in his bosom, 
 we look — and look in vain through all his pages on Mary 
 Stuart — not for " broad charity," not for " tender hu- 
 man sympathy, not for " ever present dignity," not for 
 " outbursts of truest pathos," not for some consideration for 
 the infirmities of " a lady whose faults were so fearfully 
 and terribly expiated," but for some distant approach to 
 the truth of history, for decency of phrase, for common 
 humanity. Mary Stuart's long years of suffering and im- 
 prisonment afford Mr. Froude unalloyed delight, and when, 
 with insinuation steeped in venom, our historian is not 
 busy misrepresenting the unhappy captive, he indulges in 
 the vulgar insolence of referring to her as " the lady of 
 Tutbury" or "the lady of Sheffield." 
 
 We have sought to throw some light upon the disputed 
 points of Mary Stuart's history. Our task is practically 
 completed, and there is, therefore, no occasion closely to 
 follow Mr. Froude any further in the unpleasant task of 
 exposition we have undertaken. False in one, false in all, is 
 an established maxim which would have long since war- 
 ranted us in stopping short at an early stage of the exam- 
 ination, and in claiming on all the remaining volumes of 
 his record of Mary Stuart the verdict we were entitled to 
 ask upon the first. 
 
 * 
 
CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 " He trained up was in the school of Satan's lying grace, 
 Where he had learned a finer feat that Richard erst did see 
 To do the deed and lay the Maine on them that harmless be. 
 For he and his companions eke agreeing all in one, 
 Did kill the King and lay the blame the sackless Queen upon." 
 
 Contemporary Ballad^ 1568. 
 
 And now the spirit of all evil held high carnival in Scot- 
 land. Murray, on his return with his casket and his vilely 
 earned £5,000, issued a proclamation which we are assured 
 (ix. 4'^3) contained " a true account of the investigation at 
 Hampton Court." This true account told the Scotch peo- 
 ple that the charge against his sister for the murder of her 
 husband " was sufficiently verified and by the Queen's 
 hand writ notoriously proven." Murray avers that the 
 Council found the Queen guilty, when, as we have seen, 
 they found " nothing sufficiently produced nor shown 
 against the Queen ; " and yet the historian says Murray's 
 account is a true one. The English proposition to restore 
 Mary did not suit the Regent. His power and wealth he 
 was determined to keep. By treachery he waylaid and 
 imprisoned Lord Herries and the Duke of Chatelherault, 
 and arrested Maitland, who was rescued by Kirkaldy. He 
 then sent for Grange, Morton having prepared four assas- 
 sins in ambush to murder him. Grange declined the in- 
 vitation. Then Murray went to the castle, " for," says Sir 
 James Melville, " he durst trust Kirkaldy, though Kirk- 
 aldy durst not trust him." Kirkaldy, urged Murray, should 
 give up Maitland to be tried for the murder of Darnley. 
 Yes, replied Grange, if you arrest and try Morton and 
 Archie Douglas as principals in the same murder. Mait- 
 
278 
 
 MAKY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 land favored the proposed marriage with Norfolk, and was 
 to go to London to negotiate for Scotland. Hence Mur- 
 ray's action. 
 
 And now Murray betrayed Norfolk by sending his letter 
 to Elizabeth. Norfolk was arrested and sent to the Tower. 
 When afterwards tried and his letter produced, he ex- 
 claimed, " The Earl of Murray sought my life ; " but Mr. 
 Froude is unable to see the record in " State Trials." (i. 
 085.) 
 
 jMurray had held Paris (Nicholas Hubert) secretly in 
 prison since the month of October, 1568, and might have 
 produced him as a witness against the Queen at the Con- 
 ference in December. Good reason had he for not doing 
 it. In June, 1569, he writes Elizabeth that Paris has just 
 arrived at Leith. Elizabeth, Cecil, and the Countess of 
 Lennox make the most pressing instances to send Hubert 
 to London, a request with which the Regent is careful not 
 to comply, but sends instead what he calls the deposition 
 of Paris, implicating precisely those of the lords who had 
 just broken with him and declared for the Queen. 
 
 In November (1569) the Earls of Northumberland and 
 Westmoreland broke out in open rebellion with the im- 
 mediate object of releasing Mary from her imprisonment. 
 Their effort failed. Many fled,' and of the numerous pris- 
 oners, Elizabeth, with keen discrimination and " a frugal 
 mind," ordered conviction as traitors for those who held 
 property susceptible of confiscation, but immediate hang- 
 ing for those without " substance of lands," — " the bod- 
 ies not to be removed but to remain till they fell to pieces 
 where they hung." Some seven or eight hundred were 
 executed, and more would have followed if it had not been 
 represented to the virgin Queen that " many places would 
 be left naked of inhabitants " if her orders were obeyed.^ 
 
 Murray wrote to Elizabeth claiming great merit for his 
 
 1 Mr. Froude assures us that to Elizabeth " nothing naturally was 
 more distasteful than cruelt}-." (ix. 568.) 
 
Murray's memory. 
 
 279 
 
 arrest of Nortluiniberhind, and alarming her with reports 
 of the extension of the rebellion ; that it had " more dan- 
 gerous branches," and that her prisoner Mary, the cause of 
 them all, was "at her commission." Soon after came a 
 letter from John Knox of same date with Murray's. " If 
 ye strike not at the root," was the suggestion it contained. 
 " Supreme and commanding integrity" (ix. 557) had taken 
 the Earl of Northumberland prisoner, with aid of the 
 spy Hector of Ilarlaw, a name ever since infamous in 
 Border history, and would have sold him to Elizabeth had 
 he dared, for if he had all Scotland would have risen 
 against him, thinking it " a great reproach and ignominy 
 to the whole country to deliver any banished man to the 
 slaughter." INlurray undertook to arrest Westmoreland, 
 the Ratcliffes, Nevils, Swynburnes, Nortons, and other Eng- 
 lish gentlemen, but the Borderers defied him, and six out 
 of eight hundred of his own men deserted him. The con- 
 sunnnation of the infamy was reserved for Morton. It is 
 most probable that Murray would have succeeded in giving 
 np Northumberland in part payment for the surrender of 
 his sister, but he was shot down in the streets of Linlith- 
 gow. Tiie historian who has recorded the murders of 
 Beaton, Black, and Riccio with exuberant jubilation is sim- 
 ply amusing with his " vile assassination." ^ " Whether or 
 no" ... . (ix. 593) "his memory has been sacrificed to 
 sentimentalism " (ix. 587), we cannot say. Certain are we 
 
 1 M. ^lignet finds it perfectly natural, and cont''orinable to the eternal 
 fitness of tilings, tliat Murray, "the au'hor of civil war, should fall i's 
 victim; and that as the acconiplice of a first murder and an accessary 
 after the fact to a second he should perish b}' the hand of an assassin. 
 The means by which men rise are very often the same by which they 
 fall. Such is. the ordinary law of events in which the hidden justice of 
 Providence manifests itself," {" Auteur de la guerre civile, il finit par en 
 etrevictime; complice d'un premier meurtre et en ayant toldre un second 
 il pdrit victime d'un assassinat. Les procddds par lesquels on s'dlfeve 
 sont bien souvent ceux par lesquels on tombe. Telle est la loi ordinaire 
 des dvdnements, dans laquelle delate la justice cachee de la Providence! ") 
 Mignet, vol. ii. p. 117. 
 
280 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 that his memory is not lovely in the eyes of the present 
 generation, although we are now assured that " France 
 tried to bribe him in vain ; " that " he quarreled once 
 with Knox, so that they spoke not together for eighteen 
 mouths," because he insisted that while his sister remained 
 a Catholic she should not be interdicted from the mass ; ^ 
 that as a ruler he was severe but inflexibly just ; " and 
 that, finally, he was, " in the best sense of the word, a 
 servant of God ! " 
 
 The barbarity of Elizabeth in hanging peasants by 
 batches, after the rebellion had been put down, had ex- 
 cited bitter resentment among the people of the northern 
 counties, and disaffection was strong among all classes. 
 " There be not in all this country," writes Sadler to Cecil, 
 from York, " ten gentlemen that do favor and allow her 
 majesty's proceedings in the cause of religion, and that 
 the hearts of the common people, for the most part, be 
 with the rebels." Again the rebellion broke out (Feb- 
 ruary, 1570). Leonard Dacre, at the head of 3,000 men, 
 marched to make a junction with 5,000 Scots from over 
 the Border, but was defeated by a small force of veterans 
 under Lord Hunsdon. Dacre attacked, and it was," says 
 Hunsdon, " the proudest charge I ever saw." 
 
 One of the strong points relied on by our historian 
 throughout his work, is the attitude of the Earl of Lennox 
 and Lady Lennox, towards Mary Stuart after the murder of 
 Darnley. Lennox, in league with the rebel lords, appeared 
 as the accuser of Mary on several occasions, and Mr. 
 Froude cites, with great zest (x. 96), a letter of the Count- 
 ess of Lennox (September 8, 1570) to Cecil, expressing 
 her conviction of Mary's guilt of the murder of Darnley. 
 To this letter is opposed the declaration of Mary Stuart, 
 
 1 It -would appear from this statement of Mr. Froude that John Knox 
 has told a falsehood concerning this "spoke not." Nevertheless we 
 prefer Knox's version. — Ante, p. 57. 
 
TESTIMONY OF DARNLEY's MOTHER. 
 
 281 
 
 in a letter to her ambassador at Paris, in 1578, from which 
 it would appear that Lady Lennox had become convinced 
 - of her error in accusing the Queen. Mary wrote : — 
 
 *' This good lady was, tliauks to God, in very good correspond- 
 ence with me these five or six years bygone, and has confessed 
 to by sundry letters under her own hand, which I carefully pre- 
 serve, the injury she did me by the unjust pursuits which she 
 allowed to go out against me in her name through bad informa^ 
 tion, but principally, she said, through the express orders of the 
 Queen of England and the persuasion of her council; who also 
 took much solicitude that she and I might never come to good 
 understanding together. But how soon (as soon as) she came to 
 know of ray innocence, she desisted from any further pursuit 
 against me ; nay, went so far as to refuse her consent to anything 
 they should act against me in her name." 
 
 From time to time, during Mary's imprisonment, her 
 apartments were invaded, and all her money, private 
 papers, etc., taken from her and sent to London. The 
 letters of the Countess of Lennox, referred to by Mary, of 
 course disappeared forever, and Mary's statement of their 
 contents was scouted as amounting, after all, to nothing 
 more than the affirmation of her own innocence. But the 
 following letter, addressed to Mary by the Countess of 
 Lennox, written in November, 1575, has been found among 
 Cecil's papers, and fully confirms Mary's statement : — 
 
 MARGARET COUNTESS OF LENNOX TO MARY QUEEN OF 
 SCOTS. 
 
 " It may please your majesty, I have received your token and 
 mind, both by your letter and other ways, much to my comfort, 
 specially perceiving what zealous natural care your majesty hath 
 of" our sweet and peerless jewel in Scotland. I have been no less 
 fearful and careful as your majesty of" him, that the wicked gov- 
 ernor (Morton) should not have power to do ill to his person, 
 whom God preserve from his enemies ! {Here a passage as to 
 sending a messenger to Edinburgh.) I beseech your majesty fear 
 not, but trust in God that all shall be well ; the treachery of your 
 
282 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 traitors is bettor known than before. I shall always play my 
 part to your majesty's content, willing God, so as may tend to 
 both our comforts. And now must I yield your majesty my most 
 liumble thanks for your good remembrances and bounty to our 
 little daughter here (Arabella Stuart) who some day may serve 
 your Highness, Almighty God grant, and to your majesty long 
 and happy life. 
 
 " Hackney, this vith of November. 
 
 "Your majesty's most humble and loving mother and aunt, 
 
 " Margaret Lennox." 
 
 This letter was intercepted, and never reached Mary. 
 The original is yet in the Record Office, indorsed, " My 
 Lady's Grace the Countess of Lennox to the Queen of 
 Scots.'' Thomas Nelson, one of Darnley's servants, was 
 tampered with by Murray, and his deposition concerning 
 the murder is, in several points, manifestly false. He en- 
 tered the Service of the Countess of Lennox immediately 
 thereafter, and in good time she doubtless heard from him 
 the true story. Again, tlie Earl of Lennox, an unprin- 
 cipled man, was killed in Scotland two years before his 
 Countess wrote this letter. His papers were in her hands, 
 and perhaps revealed the truth. These are conjectures. 
 Certain it is, nevertheless, that for reasons g()od and suffi- 
 cient to herself she totally changed her opinion as to the 
 murder of her son, and bore testimony not only to Mary's 
 innocence, but to Elizabeth's secret prompting of her 
 accusation. — Elizabeth, who, through all Mr. Fronde's 
 volumes, is solicitous only for the preservation of Mary's 
 reputation. 
 
 The weight and importance of the testimony of the 
 Countess of Lennox cannot be overrated, and Mary Stuart's 
 defenders may well be satisfied to be of the same belief as 
 the mother of the nuirdered Darnley. 
 
 Mr. Froude, so thoroughly familiar with the history of 
 that period, and so entirely at home in the English Record 
 Office, has not yet discovered this letter, and resolutely 
 declines any offer to have it discovered unto him. 
 
CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 FOTllERINGAY. 
 
 *' There are few judiciary proceedins^s, passing over the question of juris- 
 diction, so suspicious, and, it may be said, so tainted, as the case and pro- 
 ceeding- against the Queen of Scots!" — Sir James Mackintosh. 
 
 But it is fnhe, absolutely and utterly, that the plot was 
 set on foot by agents of Walsingham to tempt her to join 
 it in her desperation, and then to destroy her." This is Mr. 
 Fronde's shrill scream (xii. 26-1) at the mention of the 
 conspiracy by which Mary Stuart's life was taken away ; 
 and his very peculiar statements as to the plot are the 
 variations on that tl/ema. His history of the conspiiacy,^ 
 and of the trial of the Scottish Queen, is highly creditable 
 to his ingenuity,^ his rhetoric, and his peculiar talent as a 
 writer. 
 
 1 As having an important bearing upon the whole subject under dis- 
 cussion, the attention of tl)e reader is specially requested to the ofHcially 
 declared opinion of tlie custodian of the English Record Office. See Ap- 
 pendix No 1 1. 
 
 No opportunity is omitted in the " History " to impress the reader with 
 the belief that plots to assassinate Elizabeth were at all times rife, and that 
 they were formed in -Mary Stuart's interest and with her knowledge. One 
 very reprehen^ble attempt of this nature is made in which the historian 
 combines a double blow at Marv Stuart and the other special object of his 
 hatred. Referring to the " Sacred College " at Rome, he says (viii. 69): 
 It had been decided in secret council to permit Catholics in disguise to 
 hold benefices in England, to take the oaths of allegiance, and to serve 
 Holy Church in the camp of the enemv. ' Remission of sin to them and 
 their heirs — with anunities, honors, and promotions,' was offered 'to any 
 cook, brewer, baker, vintner, physician, grocer, surgeon, or other who would 
 make away Avith the Queen;' the curse of God and his vicar was threat- 
 ened against all those ' wiio would not promote and assist by money or 
 otherwise the pretenses of the Queen of Scots to the English Crown.' " As 
 
284 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Mr. Burton, scarcely recovered from the unseemly ela- 
 tion of his " here the trap was laid in which she was caught," 
 finds himself forced to admit that "the one great point on 
 which the justice of putting Queen Mary to death is held 
 to turn — her own part in the conspiracy to put Elizabeth 
 to death — is in this position. If we suppose a certain 
 cipher to have been forged by Walsingham's instruments, 
 then the charge has not been proved." (vi. 14.) 
 
 Under the Act of Parliament of 1585 it was enacted, 
 substantially, that if any one should .plot for Mary Stuart,^ 
 " her majesty's subjects might lawfully " pursue her to her 
 death. Plots could now hardly fail to apjDcar, and they did 
 appear. There were plots to release the Queen of Scots, 
 and there was a plot to assassinate Elizabeth. Cecil and 
 Walsingham, with aid of spies and informers, skilled letter 
 openers, and forgers, managed to connect them, and the 
 next step was to connect them with Mary. 
 
 Walsingham specially distinguished himself by his inge- 
 nuity in perfecting a plot by which he contrived to surround 
 the captive Queen with spies, informers, and double-faced 
 agents, who should furnish facilities and inducements for 
 correspondence to tempt her into his snare. Intensely in- 
 
 his authority for this remarkable information, Mr. Fronde cites " Report of 
 E. Dennum, April 13, 1564: Str\'pe's Annals of Elizabeth.'''' 
 
 Criticism in England has already exposed this performance. ^Ir. Fronde 
 boldly states the text as thougii it rested on undoubted authority. There 
 is such a report as cited, but Strype has the honesty to warn his reader that 
 this Dennum was a paid spy of Cecil; that he was sent over to the Con- 
 tinent for the express purpose of furnishing Elizabeth's minister " intelli- 
 gence of foreign conspiracies and contrivances," and his report professes to 
 have been attended by " making use of money," and thus " getting several 
 notices of the Pope and what he was doing, in his privy cabals," and 
 Strype further describes his document as a copv. Small wonder that even 
 English Protestant criticism is surprised that Mr. Froude " takes the 
 strange and unwarrantable course of commencing by assuming the genuine- 
 ness of the documents,'' and that it should also find in such a performance 
 the evidence of "reckless partisanship and shallow precipitancy'." 
 
 1 "It is unnecessary," observes Sir James Mackintosh, " to point out the 
 monstrous hardship of making the Queen of Scots, a prisoner in the hands 
 of Elizabeth, responsible for acts done for her and in her name." 
 
rillLIPS THE FORGER. 
 
 285 
 
 terested in the success of liis device, he left nothing undone 
 to insure that success. Does any one believe that the 
 man who could associate himself with such debased instru- 
 ments to obtain the evidence he so ardently desired, would 
 for a moment hesitate to tamper with it when once ob- 
 tained ? Can Mr. Froude explain away the more than 
 suspicious correspondence of Sir Amyas Paulet with Wal- 
 singham and Philips of June 29th, just preceding the arri- 
 val of Babington's letter of July 6th. He writes to Walsing- 
 ham that " he dares not put Phillips' plans in execution," 
 and to Philips the same day that he "dares not proceed 
 to the execution of the plan in all things, therefore returns 
 his packet." ^ The question is here concerning a plan of 
 Philips the forger. (See Appendix No 11.) Walsingham 
 is aware of the plan which, originating with Philips and 
 requiritig for its completion the aid of Mary Stuart's jailer, 
 is clearly aimed at her. Paulet is a brutal bigot ; but to 
 pjlizabeth he refuses to be Mary's assassin, and here re- 
 fuses to do some vile thing. What was it ? The packet is 
 returned because of this refusal. Did not this packet con- 
 tain forged letters which Paulet was asked to place sur- 
 reptitiously among Mary Stuart's papers with intent to seize 
 and find them there ? But the Babington letter soon fol- 
 lowed, and the trap — as Mr. Burton has it — was sprung. 
 
 Pooley, Walsingham's spy, had wormed himself into 
 Babington's confidence, and suggested that the Scottish 
 Queen should be written to.- Babington acquiesced, and 
 wrote her a letter which went straight into Walsingham's 
 hands. It was then forwarded to Mary, but with how much 
 interpolation or change before it left AValsingham cannot 
 now be ascertained. Maintaining a large correspondence, 
 the Queen had two secretaries, Curie and Nau. One of 
 these wrote out her letters from her notes or under her 
 dictation, and when required to be sent in cipher, Nau did 
 the work. The only letters upon which accusation was 
 
 1 Calendar of State Papers, vol. ii. Scottish Series, and Appendix No. 11. 
 
286 
 
 MARY QUEKX OF SCOTS. 
 
 based, were those in cipher, and the documentary evidence 
 upon which Mary was found guilty were so-called copies 
 of deciphers of the letters, deciphered, not by Nau, but by 
 one Philipps, a man in Walsinghani's employment,^ to whom 
 on one occasion (November oO, I08G) he wrote that he sent 
 him a letter, " which if it may he deciphered, will, I hope, 
 lay open the treachery that reignetli among us. Her maj- 
 esty hath promised to double your pension, and to be oth- 
 erwise good unto you. And so I commit you to God." 
 (Cotton MSS.) A sketch of the personal appearance of 
 this Philipps has been preserved : Of low stature, slender 
 every way, dark, yellow-haired on the head, and clear 
 yellow-bearded, eated in the face with small pockes, of 
 short sight." 
 
 When Nau and Curie were arrested, promises and 
 threats of torture were alternately made them. Septem- 
 ber 4th, Cecil writes to Hatton that he thought they were 
 ready " to yield somewhat to confirm their mistress' crimes, 
 if they were persuaded that themselves might scape and 
 the blow fldl upon their Mrs. betwixt her head and her 
 shoulders.'' The fact that, two days before Cecil wrote 
 this letter, Walsingham informed the French Ambassador 
 that Nau and Curie had confessed more than was wanted, 
 is more than suggestive. Babington and thirteen others 
 were meantime convicted and sentenced to be hanged, cut 
 down before they were dead, embowelled, and quartered. 
 Queen Elizabeth desired that they should suffer death in 
 some manner more excruciating. Being told that it would 
 be illegal, she kindly consented that the law should take 
 its course, provided the executions were " protracted to 
 the extremitie of payne in them," and in full sight of the 
 people. 
 
 Nau and Curie were compelled to witness these exe- 
 
 1 " C'est a I'aide de ces misdrables instruments qu'il pr^para la mine de 
 ]\Iarie Stuart" (Miffnet, vol. ii. p. 265); for even M. Mignet can see clearly 
 here, now that he has left Buchanan behind him. 
 
FALSE COPY OF FALSE DECirilER. 
 
 287 
 
 cutions — probably to put them in a proper frame of mind 
 to answer interrogatories. On their examination they were 
 shown — not the original cipher sent — not a copy of the 
 cipher — not even a copy of the decipher, of Mary's let- 
 ter to Babington — the correctness of which was the all 
 important point — the only question, in fact, at issue, but 
 an abstract of the principal points " contained in it. The 
 official record recites that they answered in the affirma- 
 tive ; but this is in terms so ambiguous that it is impos- 
 sible to apply their admission to the passages disclaimed 
 by Mary, and which have since been demonstrated to be 
 forgeries. " It was the same, or like it," they said. But 
 official records in England in all matters touching Mary 
 Stuart command but little respect for their integrity — as 
 witness the erasures, interlineations, and interpolations of 
 the minutes in Cecil's own hand of the proceedings when 
 the casket-letters were produced. Nau afterwards pos- 
 itively affirmed " that the principal heads of accusation 
 against the Queen, his mistress, were false," and demanded 
 that his protest should be recorded. Curie, when dying, 
 protested that, as he should answer to God, " he had main- 
 tained the Queen's innocence both in her life and after her 
 death." 
 
 Did Nau or Curie identify and swear to the pretended 
 passages in the cipher letters, which were produced to 
 show Mary's complicity in the plot ? Did they testify that 
 they, or either of them, wrote those passages under her 
 dictation, or from her notes ? There is no other question 
 in that portion of the case ; and when Mr. Froude says 
 that " Philipps' copy of the cipher was examined by the 
 Privy Council and the decipher verified" (xii. 260), he 
 recoils from discussion of the real point at issue, as in- 
 stinctively as he shrinks from examination into the origin 
 of the casket-letters. However, he makes amends for the 
 debility of this passage by the epileptic nerve of another 
 at page 293, in which he states that on examination of 
 
2S8 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Mary's papers, taken from her at Chartley. proof was found 
 that " the worst suspicions formed about her had fallen 
 short of the reality." ^ — the fact being that not a line, not 
 a word of all Mary's papers and correspondence — the ac- 
 cumulation of years — was ever produced against her. 
 
 Of the trial and execution of Babington and his asso- 
 ciates, of the examination of her secretaries, and their 
 pretended admissions, Mary had heard nothing. For sev- 
 enteen days she was kept in solitary confinement at Tixall, 
 and meantime all her books, papers, letters, and money 
 were seized and sent to London. 
 
 A commission was now ordered for her trial. The 
 French Ambas>ador. in the king's name, demanded that 
 she might have the aid of counsel, to which, two days af- 
 terwards, Elizabeth sent verbal reply that "she did not 
 believe his king had given him orders to school her ; his 
 
 1 To the historian who so clearly sees Maiy Stuart proven guilty at Foth- 
 eringay. -whose knowledge of the existence of such a thing in English law 
 as the peine foiie ei dure was acquired under such untoward circumstances, 
 and who has "never seen the face of an EngUsh justice," we warmly rec- 
 ommend perusal of Lord Brougham's remarks on the error of a really able 
 historian — Hume: '"This error," says Lord Brougham, " shows that he 
 knew very little of what legal evidence is, how expertly soever he might 
 deal with historical evidence. After enumerating the proofs adduced at 
 the trial of Mary's accession to the assassination part of Babingtou's plot, 
 namely, copies taken in Walsingham's office of correspondence with Bab- 
 ington; the confessions of her two secretaries, without torture, but in her 
 absence, and without confronting or cross-examination; Babington's con- 
 fession, and the confession of Ballard and Savage, that Babington had 
 shown thf m Mary's letters in cipher, — the historian adds that, 'in the case 
 of an ordinary criminal, this proof would be esteemed legal and even 
 satisfactory, if not opposed by some other circumstances which shake the 
 credit of the witnesses.' 
 
 " Nothing can betray greater ignorance of the very first principles of the 
 law of evidence. The witnesses he speaks of do not even exist; there is 
 nothing like a witness mentioned in his enumeration of proofs; and how 
 any man of Mr. Hume's acuteness could fancy that what one person con- 
 fesses behind a prisoner's back, that he heard a third person say to a pris- 
 oner, or rather that this third person showed him ciphered letters not pro- 
 duced of that prisoner, could be anything like evidence to affect him, is 
 truly astonishing, and shows how dangerous a thing it is for the artist most 
 expert in his o^vn line to pronounce an opinion on matters beyond it." 
 
APPEAL TO POSTERITY. 
 
 28& 
 
 advice was not needed, and as the law considered a person 
 in the situation of the Scottish Queen unworthj' of coun- 
 sel, she would abide by the ordinary forms of justice." 
 
 Forms must be gone through. Leicester, then in Hol- 
 land, had written to recommend the sure remedy of poison, 
 and even sent a learned divine over to prove the lawful- 
 ness of adopting its use. The prevailing opinion in Eliza- 
 beth's council was, that "her death was indispensably 
 requisite to the establishment of the new religion." (Cam- 
 den.) But the forms were necessary, if only for decency's 
 sake. Mary was, in fact, already condemned to death,^ 
 and so she told the Commissioners on their arrival at 
 Fotheringay. Their proceedings, she said, were "merely 
 formal, for that she ivas already condemned by them that 
 should try her." " Yet I adjure you," she added, " to look 
 to your consciences in this matter, for remember THE 
 THEATRE OF THE WORLD IS WIDER THAN 
 THE REALM OF ENGLAND." 
 
 Mary, at first, refused to appear before the Commission- 
 ers, knowing that they had not a shadow of right or law to 
 try her. Several attempts were unsuccessful in shaking 
 this resolution. " What was their authority ? " she asked. 
 The Queen ? The Queen was merely her equal, not her 
 superior. Their sovereign, in her letter, said that she 
 (Mary) " was living in England under the Queen's pro- 
 tection." She could not understand that statement. Would 
 the Lord Chancellor explain it? Sorely embarrassed for 
 reply was the Lord Chancellor. He was of opinion that 
 " it was not for subjects to interpret their sovereign's 
 letters." 
 
 " The laws and statutes of England," said Mary, " are to 
 
 1 *' Leicester's bond of association for the protection of Elizabeth against 
 popish conspirators, and the Act of Parliament in which it was authorized 
 and embodied, were engines framed for as direct agency in the execution of 
 the Queen of Scots, as the executioners, the axe, and the block."— Sir 
 James Mackintosh. 
 
 19 
 
290 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 me unknown. I am destitute of counselors. My papers 
 and notes are taken from me, and no man dareth speak in 
 my justification, though I be innocent. I am clear from 
 any practice to the hurt of your Queen. Let her convict 
 me of the same by my words or my writings ; but sure I 
 am neither can be produced against me." Further, she 
 told them it was plain she was prejudged as. guilty of the 
 crime, therefore it was useless for her to appear. 
 
 It is thought by many that she should have held out in 
 her decision, by declining the competency of the tribunal. 
 But Hatton had said to her, " If you are innocent, you have 
 nothing to fear, but by avoiding a trial you stain your 
 reputation with an eternal blot." It is reasonably conjec- 
 tured that this consideration, joined to the reflection that 
 her enemies were determined to have her life, and that if 
 she were secretly assassinated suicide would be imputed, 
 decided her to appear. 
 
 On the morning of the 14th October (0. S.), enfeebled 
 by illness, and walking with the support of her physi- 
 cian's arm, the Queen of Scotland entered the great hall 
 of Fotheringay Castle. The ablest statesmen and law- 
 yers of England, and tlie most distinguished of its nobility 
 were assembled to try her — at once, prosecutors, judges, 
 and jurors. Of the forty-two appointed, thirty-six had 
 assembled, and to these was now added the Queen's jailer, 
 Sir Amyas Paulet. 
 
 Nine earls, thirteen lords. Viscount Montague, the Lord 
 Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, Elizabeth's Privy Coun- 
 cilors, Hatton, Walsingham, Croft, Sadler, and Mildmay ; 
 Wray and Anderson, Chief Justices of the Common Pleas 
 and Queen's Bench ; Manwood, Chief Baron of the Ex- 
 chequer ; and Gaudy and Periam, Justices of the Common 
 Pleas and Queen's Bench, formed the array, and to aid 
 them, for the prosecution, appeared the Attorney-general, 
 Popham, and the Solicitor-general, Egerton. 
 
WHY NOT FACE TO FACE? 291 
 
 " Alas ! " said the unfortunate prisoner, " how many 
 learned counselors are here, and yet not one for me ! " 
 
 No, not one ! and this prisoner was a friendless woman, 
 for nineteen years deprived of her liberty, unaware of the 
 late trials which were held by her judges to be proofs against 
 her, without witnesses, papers, or even the poor aid of a 
 scribe, and ignorant of judicial forms and of the laws of 
 England. 
 
 That Christian statesman, Lord Burghley, manifested his 
 appreciation of her sad condition by circulating among the 
 members of the Commission, " A note of the indignities 
 and wrongs offered by the Queen of Scots to the Queen's 
 majesty," and a distinguished English historian — we do 
 not refer to Mr. Froude — has thus described the incident: 
 " No pettifogging advocate could employ falsehood and 
 sophistry with more license than this statesman acting in 
 the sacred character of a judge." 
 
 But this woman was Mary Stuart, and alone and unaided 
 she baffled their ability, their learning, their skill, and their 
 manifest injustice, with weapons drawn from her sense of 
 natural rights, and the consciousness of her integrity.^ 
 
 The papers used in evidence were all copies, and no 
 witnesses were produced against her.^ Babington's con- 
 fession was presented as criminating her. "IfBabington 
 confessed such things," she replied, " why was he put to 
 death, instead of beinor brous^ht face to face with me?" 
 and she appealed to the statute (15th Elizabeth) by which 
 " the testimony and oath of two lawful witnesses, brought 
 face to face with the accused, were necessary to con- 
 vict." Reply made, " they had her letters," and copies of 
 
 1 "It is impossible to read, without admiration, in the minute records of 
 the trial, the self-possessed, prompt, clear, and sagacious replies by which 
 this forlorn woman defended herself against the most expert lawyers and 
 politicians of tlie age, who, instead of examining her as judges, pressed her 
 with the unscrupulous ingenuity of enemies." — Sir James Mackintosh. 
 
 2 " At Fotheringay the accused was examined without the witnesses, and 
 at Westminster, the witnesses Avithout the accused." — Mignet, vol. ii. p. 321. 
 
292 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Philipps' handiwork were produced. " Nay," she objected, 
 " bring nie mine own hand-writ ; ^ anything to suit a pur- 
 pose may be put in what be called copies. This is not the 
 first time that my letters have been copied and interpolated. 
 It is an easy matter to counterfeit ciphers and characters." 
 
 She greatly feared," she added, that it had been done by 
 Walsingham to bring her to the scaffold, for if she were 
 rightly informed, he had, before this, practiced against her 
 life." 
 
 This was not " a random shot," and the blow told with 
 terrible effect. Walsingham was greatly agitated, as well 
 he might be. Behold, the judge is now the criminal. He 
 called God to record " his reply which was no denial, 
 but an evasion of Mary's charge. 
 
 "I have no counsel," again she told them; "you have 
 deprived me of my papers, and all means of preparing my 
 defense, which must, therefore, be confined to a solemn 
 denial of the crime imputed to me ; and I protest, on the 
 sacred honor of a queen, that I am innocent of practicing 
 against your sovereign's life. I do not, indeed, deny that 
 I have longed for liberty, and earnestly labored to procure 
 it. Nature impelled me to do so ; but I call God to wit- 
 ness that I have never conspired the death of the Queen 
 of England." 
 
 In asking the Commissioners why Curie and Nau were 
 not confronted with her, and why her own writings were 
 not produced, she put questions they dared not answer. 
 It is an all-sufficient commentary on the monstrous nature 
 of these proceedings, and the actual despotism then exist- 
 ing in England, that, anticipating Mary's demand to be 
 confronted with her secretaries, Elizabeth herself had 
 
 1 TValsingham had Mary's own note of her answer to Babington. He also 
 had the French letter written by Nau in conformity with the notes. He 
 did not produce them. He dared not produce them ; and he asked her 
 conviction — himself being one of her judges — on a copy of Philipps' de- 
 cipher of the cipher into which that Frencii letter had been put. 
 
LORD brougham's ARGUMENT. 
 
 203 
 
 written to Cecil ''that she considered it unnecessary." 
 Gandy, one of the judges, and the Lord Chancellor, failed 
 to embarrass Mary, and -Lord Burghley himself more 
 signally failed to browbeat her. But Cecil had his re- 
 venge ; for he boasted to his mistress of " so encountering 
 her with his reason and experience in such sort, as she had 
 not that advantage she looked for." Swiftly the Commis- 
 sion adjourned to Westminster, and did what was required 
 of them. A verdict of guilty was signed,^ not only by the 
 thirty-six Commissioners present at Fotheringay, but by 
 twelve who were absent. Why not? The twelve who 
 were absent saw fully as much evidence of the prisoner's 
 guilt as those who were present. 
 
 In connection with this trial, we have never seen cited 
 the very remarkable opinion of Lord Brougham, who sums 
 up the whole case in a compact legal argument, to which 
 any effective reply, in whole or in part, would be exceed- 
 ingly difficult. 
 
 1. " When Mary took refuge in England, all her previous 
 misconduct ^ gave Elizabeth no kind of title to detain her 
 as a prisoner, nor any right even to deliver her up as pris- 
 oner at the request of the Scots, had they demanded her. 
 
 2. " In keeping her a prisoner for twenty years, under 
 various pretexts, Elizabeth gave her ample license and 
 complete justification for whatever designs she might form 
 to regain her liberty. 
 
 3. "The conspiracy of Norfolk looked only to the 
 maintaining of her strict rights, the restoration of her 
 personal liberty, and her marriage with that ill-fated 
 nobleman, which she was willing to solemnize as soon as 
 she could be divorced from Bothwell. 
 
 4. " Babington's conspiracy included rebellion, and also 
 
 1 With the exception of Lord Zouch, on the separate charge of assassina- 
 tion. 
 
 2 Lord Brougham had no h"ghts on Mary's previous history beyond the 
 versions of Hume and Robertson. 
 
294 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 the assassination of Elizabeth ; and great, and certainly 
 very fruitless, pains are taken by Mary's partisans to rebut 
 the proofs of her having joined it. She, indeed, never 
 pretended to resist the proof that she was a party to the 
 conspiracy in general ; she only denied her knowledge of 
 the projected assassination. But, supposing her to have 
 been also cognizant of that, it seems not too relaxed a 
 view of duty to hold that one sovereign princess, detained 
 unjustifiably in captivity by another for twenty years, has 
 a right to use even extreme measures of revenge. In self- 
 defense, all means are justifiable, and Mary had no other 
 means than war to the knife against her oppressor. 
 
 5. " For this accession to Babington's conspiracy, chiefly; 
 she was brought to trial by that oppressor who had violated 
 every principle of justice, and every form of law, in hold- 
 ing her a prisoner for twenty years. 
 
 6. " Being convicted on this trial, the sentence was 
 executed by Elizabeth's express authority; although, with 
 a complication of falsehood utterly disgusting, and which 
 holds her character up to the scorn of mankind in all ages, 
 she pretended that it had been done without her leave, 
 and against her will, and basely ruined the unfortunate 
 man, who, yielding to her commands, had conveyed to be 
 executed the orders she had signed with her own hand." 
 
CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 THE WARRANT. 
 
 " For the clumsy, cunning, and brazen mendacity with which her 
 triumphant rival (Elizabeth) concluded the scene, no one has any pallia- 
 tion." — BuKTOX, History of Scutland, vol. vi. p. 20. 
 
 The crushing calamities and deep sorrow of the Queen 
 of Scots were contemphited with u cahn and cheerful res- 
 ignation by Elizabeth and her secretaries. While the trial 
 was in progress the kind English Queen sent messages 
 by Davison expressing great desit;^ to hear how her Spirit 
 and her 3Ioon (her pet names for Cecil (Lord Burghley) 
 and Walsingham) found themselves after " their long and 
 distressing journey." From the same correspondence we 
 find, too, that Mr. Fronde's airy insolence in designating 
 the Scottish Queen as " The Lady at Tutbury," has not 
 even the poor merit of originality, for Burghley speaks of 
 her to Elizabeth as " The Queen of the Castle." 
 
 Parliament united in petition that the death sentence be 
 carried to speedy execution. To whom Elizabeth replied 
 that she would deliberate, and " commend herself to be 
 directed by God's holy Spirit." Then Sir James Croft 
 moved that "some earnest and devout pi ayer to God, to in- 
 cline he^ majesty's heart to grant the petition, be printed 
 for daily use in the House of Commons and by the mem- 
 bers in their chambers and lodgings." The Speaker, one 
 Puckering, reminded her majesty that by their oath of 
 association they were bound to kill the Queen of Scots. 
 To do it without license would be to incur the indignation 
 of her majesty ; not to do it would be for them perjury and 
 the indignation of God. To her majesty they held up the 
 
296 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 awful examples of " Saul who spared Agag, and of Ahab 
 who spared Benhadad — wicked princes whom God had 
 deUvered into their hands, of purpose to be slain to death 
 by them." 
 
 If Mr. Froude is correct in saying of Elizabeth, " She 
 could not write an English sentence without the most in- 
 tricate involutions," she would appear to carry the same 
 quality into her verbal communications. Her reply to 
 Parliament was : — 
 
 " If I should say that I meant not to grant your petition, by my 
 faith, I should say unto you more perhaps than I mean. And if 
 I should say that I meant to grant it, I should tell you more than 
 is fit for you to know. Thus I must dehver unto you an answer 
 answerless." i 
 
 Although an enemy of every member of the house of 
 Guise, the French King could not stand idly by and see 
 Mary Stuart murdered. He dispatched Believre as spe- 
 cial Ambassador to the English court, Chateauneuf being 
 already there. Elizabeth wanted delay in the remon- 
 strances of the French King. She is credited with a ready 
 wit, and here is a specimen of it. Young Stafford, brother 
 of Elizabeth's Ambassador at Paris, invented a story charg- 
 ing Chateauneufs secretary with entering into a conspir- 
 acy against the Queen's life. This Stafford, says Mr. 
 Froude, was a notorious reprobate," which is altogether 
 likely. He was a hardened reprobate, too, and a good 
 actor, for he reiterated the charge in presence of Chateau- 
 neuf and the council, and even accused the Ambassador 
 himself with guilty knowledge. The " accomplished ac- 
 tress " at the palace was meantime a la hauteur de son role, 
 the council had caught her histrionic inspiration, for, as our 
 histrionic historian assures us, they " gravely told " (xii. 339) 
 the Ambassador that " he had been guilty of a serious fault." 
 
 The impudent farce was kept up as long as it was 
 
 1 A reply which has been styled oracular for its ambiguity and im- 
 posture. 
 
FAKCE AND FORGKHY. 
 
 207 
 
 thought necessary ; then an apology- was made for the 
 inconveniences to which the Ambassador had been sub- 
 jected by an ignoble plot of which Elizabeth herself was 
 the instigator. (See xii. 338.) 
 
 The interpolation and forgery then in vogue in English 
 court procedure manifested itself even in this miserable 
 affair. Forged and falsified documents were used by 
 " these charming English councilors," no original docu- 
 ments being presented, but copies only, in which they add 
 or omit what they please.^ 
 
 Meantime popular anger had been aroused and kept up 
 against the French and against Mary Stuart by this sup- 
 posed discovery of a supposed plot against the life of the 
 Queen. The French secretary was kept imprisoned in the 
 Tower "after the groundlessness of the charge had been 
 confessed, lest," — says Mr. Froude with a knowing wink 
 to his reader, — "lest it should seem as if he had been 
 arrested without cause." When all was over, Elizabeth 
 entertained the French Ambassador with a merry joke 
 concerning it. On the vulgar infamy of this disgraceful 
 aifair, Mr Fronde's final opinion is that " it formed a poor 
 and undignified episode in the tragedy in which it was im- 
 bedded, and it tarnished a proceeding which so far had 
 been moderate and just." 
 
 "Tarnished," is good. So also is "moderate." "Just," 
 is simply admirable. 
 
 Mr. Froude's " History of England" has-been charac- 
 terized as a piece of "masking and mumming, with infer- 
 ence, supposition, and insinuation, with forced citations 
 and patched references." To which may be added, false 
 translations.^ These characteristics abound throughout 
 
 1 " Avaient ces beaux conseillers d'Angleterre forf?e, falsifid, et compost 
 toutes telles escritures qu'ils avaient voullu sur ce faict par eux inventd 
 et projette. Car il faut notter que jamais ne produisent les mesmes /jeeces 
 originaulx des procedures, mais seulement des copies, esqueiles lis ajoutent 
 on diminuent ce qu'il leur plait." — Villeroy's Regisire in Life of Lord 
 Egerton, p. 101. 
 
 2 See a flagrant instance at xii. 308. 
 
203 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 the narration of the events from Walshigham's initiation 
 of the plot to take Mary Stuart's life, down to the closing 
 scene of the tragedy at Fotheringay. Elizabeth dallied 
 and hesitated between her appreciation of the infamy of 
 the act and her desire for the death of the victim. To 
 her aid, for the eyes of the nineteenth century, skilful his- 
 torian brings a supposed public clamor for the execution. 
 Elizabeth's " clumsy, cunning, and brazen mendacity," re- 
 ferred by Mr. Burton, are found in her denial of wishing 
 the execution forwarded and her persecution of Secretary 
 Davison, who was guilty of obeying her orders. After she 
 had signed the warrant for the execution, she told Davi- 
 son of a dream she had the night before ; the Queen of 
 Scots, she dreamed, was executed. " She laughed as she 
 was speaking." (xii. 349.) *' Had she changed her mind ? 
 Did she not mean to go on with the execution ? " inquired 
 Davison. 
 
 " Yea ! by God," was her reply, " but it might receive 
 a better form, for this casteth the whole burthen upon 
 myself" And here, we trust, the reader will give his best 
 attention to Mr. Froude's gentle reflection : " ElizahetJis 
 conduct was not noble, but it was natural and 'pardonable^ 
 
 Effort had been made to cast a part of this " burthen " 
 upon Sir Amyas Paulet by requesting him to assassinate 
 Mary. He chose not to understand the drift of Elizabeth's 
 letter " To my Loving Amias ; " and a modern historian 
 can see no malice in the celebrated " non omnibus datum " 
 epistle. Afterwards Walsingham wrote to Paulet (and 
 Drury) without involution or honeyed speech : — 
 
 " We find by a speech lately made by her majesty, that she 
 doth note in you both a lack of that care and zeal for her service 
 that she looketh for at your hands, in that you have not all this 
 time (of yourselves without further provocation) found out some 
 way to shorten the life of the Scots Queen, considering the great 
 peril she is hourly subject to, so long as the said Queen shall 
 live." 
 
THE CROWNING ACT. 
 
 299 
 
 Now Paulet was Mary Stuart's bitter enemy. He had 
 been to her a cruel jailer and an unjust judge ; he had 
 behaved towards her with ruffianly brutality, and was 
 ready, in case her rescue were attempted, to slay her with 
 his own hand ; but he was not a sneaking assassin. 
 He answered Walsingham, expressing his great grief and 
 bitterness — 
 
 " As living to see this unhappy day in which I am required, by 
 directions of ray most gracious sovereign, to do an act which God 
 and the law forbiddeth. My goods and life are at her majesty's 
 disposition, and I am ready to lose them the next morrow if it 
 shall please her. But God forbid I should make so foul a ship- 
 wreck of my conscience, or leave so great a blot to my poor 
 posterity, and shed blood without law or warrant." 
 
 The historian Burton finds in " that terrible letter " of 
 Walsingham "one of the foulest blots in English history;" 
 but why it should be as foul as the suggestion or com- 
 mand which inspired it, we cannot see. Nor indeed, in 
 reality, can Mr. Burton, and he says so, but with qualifica- 
 tion of hypothesis. 
 
 A greater Scot than he sees the case plainly, and states 
 it forcibly : " With a complication of falsehood utterly 
 disgusting, and which holds her character up to the scorn 
 of mankind in all ages, she pretended that it had been 
 done without her leave and against her will." Elsewhere 
 he says : — 
 
 " But if there be any one passage of her life which calls forth 
 this sentiment (disgust) more than another, it is her vile conduct 
 respecting the execution of Mary Stuart — her hateful duplicity, 
 her execrable treachery towards the instruments she used and 
 sacrificed, her cowardly skulking behind those instruments to 
 escape the censures of the world. This was the crowning act 
 of a whole life of despicable fraud and hypocrisy." (Lord 
 Brougham.) 
 
 In the last letter Mary Stuart wrote Elizabeth she reit- 
 
300 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF' SCOTS. 
 
 erated the denial she had always uniformly made of parti- 
 cipation in any design upon Elizabeth's life : — 
 
 " As to practicing any ill against you, I declare, in the presence 
 of God, I am not guilty of that crime ; but God will let you see 
 the truth of all plainly after my death." 
 
 Her letter concludes thus : — 
 
 " I beseech the God of mercy and justice to enlighten you with 
 his Holy Spirit, and to give me the grace to die in perfect charity, 
 as I endeavor to do, pardoning my death to all those who have 
 either caused or cooperated in it ; and this will be my prayer to 
 
 the end Accuse me not of presumption if, in leaving this 
 
 world and preparing myself for a better, I remind you that you 
 will have one day to give an account of your charge, in like man- 
 ner as those who have preceded you in it, and that my blood and 
 the misery of my country will be remembered ; wherefore, from 
 the earliest dawn of our comprehension we ought to dispose our 
 minds to make things temporal yield to those of eternity. From 
 Fotheringay this 19th of December, 1586. 
 
 " Your sister and cousin, wrongfully a prisoner. 
 
 " Marie Hoyne." i 
 
 1 See Appendix No. 14 for another epistle of Mary Stuart to Queen Eliza- 
 beth. Whether we consider the circumstances under which it was written, 
 the compact logic of its reasoning, the energy of its style, the beauty of 
 its diction, or the pathos of its tone, it is one of the most remarliable letters 
 in the history of literature; and it is doubtful if any defender of the un- 
 fortunate Queen has better succeeded in presenting the merits of her case 
 and the argument for her innocence, than has Mary Stuart herself in this 
 production. 
 
CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 THE SCAFFOLD. 
 
 " As for the victim, no martyr, conscious of a life of unsullied purity, 
 
 ever met her fate with greater dignity She did her expiation with 
 
 a noble simplicity. For nTany years she had submitted quietly to restraints 
 and humiliations, rather as one who was in that shape raising herself above 
 her persecutor, than from weakness or servility." — Burton, History of Scot- 
 land, vol. vi. p. 22. 
 
 " The circumstances of her death equal that of an ancient martyr." — 
 John Wesley. 
 
 For months Mary Stuart had been under sentence of 
 death. For weeks the warrant for her execution had been 
 signed. And yet, after so much delay, the warning that 
 she must prepare to die at last came suddenly, and the 
 time allowed was short. On the afternoon of the 7th of 
 February, the Earls of Shrewsbury and Kent arrived. Ad- 
 mitted to her presence, the death-warrant was read to her. 
 The Queen listened in dignified composure, and thanked 
 them for their message. Death, she said, should be wel- 
 come to her, although " brought about by artifice and fraud." 
 Then, laying her hand on a Testament, she called upon 
 God to witness that, "As for the death of your sovereign, 
 I never imagined, never sought it, never consented to it." 
 
 The Earl of Kent objected that the book was a popish 
 Testament, and the oath, therefore, of no value. It is a 
 Catholic Testament," rejoined Mary ; " on that account I 
 prize it the more ; and, therefore, according to your own 
 reasoning, you ought to judge my oath the more satis- 
 factory." 
 
 She then requested, as the single indulgence she would 
 ask, that she might have the attendance of her almoner, 
 
S02 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 who was still in the castle. Her request, she was told, 
 could not be granted. " It was contrary to the law of God 
 and the law of the land, and would endanger hoth the souh 
 and bodies of the Coni7nissioners." Kent then suggested 
 that she should receive the Dean of Peterborough, a very 
 learned the'ologian, who would instruct her in the truth, 
 and show her the error of the false religion in which she 
 had been brought up ; with more to the same effect. 
 The Queen declined the services of the dean. She would 
 die in the religion in which she had been baptized. 
 " Madame," interrupted the earl, " your life would be the 
 death of our religion, and your death will be its preserva- 
 tion." 
 
 In reply to her question when she was to die, — " To- 
 morrow morning at eight o'clock," was the answer. 
 
 " That is very sudden," said the Queen, and asked for 
 some slight extension of the time. " It is not in our power," 
 replied the earl ; " you must die to-morrow at the hour we 
 have named." And so they parted. 
 
 Calm and self-possessed herself, the Queen's greatest 
 effort was now to check the wild "sobbing and frantic grief 
 of her attendants. To her physician she remarked, "They 
 said I was to die for attempting the life of the Queen of 
 England, of which, you know, I am innocent ; but now this 
 earl lets out the fact that it is on account of my religion." 
 
 Soon was heard the noise of hammering on the planks 
 of the scaffold in the great hall adjoining. With this sound 
 ringing in her ears, she passed the entire night in writing 
 letters, and her will, and in her devotions. At four o'clock 
 she sought a short repose on her pillow, but her attendants 
 remarked that she did not sleep, and that her lips were 
 constantly moving as in prayer. At six o'clock she told 
 her ladies " she had but two hours to live," and to " dress 
 her as for a festival." 
 
 We have witnessed the struggle with the Earl of Kent 
 for the rights of conscience. Now came another on a 
 
THE DEATH-WARRANT. 
 
 303 
 
 question of humanity — of decency. They had already 
 entered the hall. The Queen asked that she might have 
 tha attendance of her women to disrobe her. — Refused ! 
 
 " I trust, my lords, that your mistress, being a maiden 
 Queen, will vouchsafe, in regard of womanhood, that I may 
 have some of my own women about me at my death. A 
 far greater courtesy might be extended to me, even were 
 I a woman of far meaner calling." 
 
 No answer. 
 
 " I am cousin to your Queen, my lords, descended of the 
 blood royal of Henry VII., a married Queen of France, 
 and the anointed Queen of Scotland." 
 
 Upon consultation, the earls consented to allow two of 
 her women to attend her. 
 
 On her way to the hall, Mary was met by her faithful 
 servant, Andrew Melville, who threw himself on his knees 
 before her, wringing his hands in uncontrollable agony. 
 " Woe is me," he said, " that it should be my hard lot to 
 carry back such tidings to Scotland." 
 
 "Weep not, Melville, my good and faithful servant; 
 thou should'st rather rejoice to see the end of the long 
 troubles of Mary Stuart. This world is vanity, and full of 
 sorrows. I am a Catholic, thou Protestant ; but as there 
 is but one Christ, I charge thee, in his name, to bear wit- 
 ness that I die firm to my religion, a true Scotchwoman, 
 and true to France." And then, with a message to her 
 son, she concluded : " May God forgive them that have 
 thirsted for my blood." 
 
 On account of her lameness, the Queen had descended 
 the stairway to the hall with difficulty, and was obliged to 
 accept the offer of Paulet's assistance to mount the two 
 steps to the scaffold. " I thank you, sir," she said ; " it is 
 the last trouble I will ever give you." The death-warrant 
 was again read by Beale, in a loud voice. One of its re- 
 citals is, that "execution against her person" was to be 
 done, " as well for the cause of the gospel and true religion 
 
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 of Christ, as for the peace of the whole reahii." Then the 
 Dean of Peterborough began to address her : His mis- 
 tress, he said, was careful of the welfare of her (Mark's) 
 soul, and had sent him to bring her out of that creed, in 
 which, continuing, she must be damned." Mary begged 
 him not to concern himself with her. He persisted. She 
 turned away. He walked around the scaffold, again con- 
 fronted her, and again he began. 
 
 The scene was horrible and scandalous. The Earl of 
 Kent bade him stop preaching and begin to pray. He did 
 so, and his prayer was the echo of his sermon. 
 
 But now, Mary heeded him no more, and took refuge in 
 her own prayers and the repetition of the psalms for the 
 dying. She prayed for her son, and for Queen Elizabeth, 
 for the peace and prosperity of Scotland; for her enemies, 
 and for herself She then arose, crucifix in hand, and 
 exclaimed: "As Thy arms, O God, were stretched out 
 upon the cross, so receive me into the arms of Thy mercy, 
 and forgive me my sins." 
 
 " Madame," said the Earl of Kent, " it were better for 
 you to leave such popish trumperies, and bear Him in 
 your heart." 
 
 " Can I," she replied, " hold the representation of my 
 crucified Redeemer in my hand without bearing him at the 
 same time in my heart?" Then she knelt down, saying: 
 " 0 Lord, into Thy hands I commend my spirit." 
 
 The first blow of the executioner inflicted a ghastly 
 wound on the lower part of the skull. Not a scream, nor 
 groan — not a sigh escaped her, but the convulsion of her 
 features showed the horrible suffering caused by the 
 wound. The eye-witness of the execution whose account 
 is published in Teulet, thus relates this incident: "There- 
 upon the headsman brought down his axe, but, missing the 
 proper place, gave her a terrible blow on the upper ex- 
 tremity of the neck, but — worthy of an unexampled forti- 
 
THE AXE. 
 
 305 
 
 tude — she remained perfectly still, and did not even 
 heave a sigh." ^ 
 
 At the second stroke,^ the neck was severed from the 
 body, and held up to the gaze of the bystanders. The exe- 
 cutioner repeated his formula, " God save Queen Eliza- 
 beth." 
 
 " So perish all her enemies," added the Dean of Peter- 
 borough. 
 
 " So perish all the enemies of the gospel," exclaimed the 
 Earl of Kent. 
 
 But not one voice was heard to say " Amen ! " ^ 
 
 1 Et sur ce I'executeur frappa do sa hache, mars faillant a, trouver la 
 jointure, luy donna un grand coup sur le chignon du col, mais, ce qui fut 
 digne d'une Constance non pareille, est que Ton ne vitremuer aucune partie 
 de son corps, ny pas seulement jetter un soupir." — Vray Rapport, Teulet. 
 
 2 Some authorities say the third. 
 8 Lingard. 
 
 20 
 
CHAPTER XXVIIL 
 
 HISTORIAN AND HEADSMAN. 
 
 " It is so painful to dwell upon the words and actions of a poor woman 
 in her moments of miser3\" — History of England^ by J. A. Froude, ^ 
 vol. ii. p. 455. 
 
 " It is a miserable duty to be compelled to search for these indications of 
 human infirmities; above all, wlien the}^ are the infirmities of a lady whose 
 faults, let them liave been what they would, were so fearfully and terribly 
 expiated." — History of England, by J. A. Froude, vol. i. p. 179. 
 
 We have already stated that a serious objection to Mr- 
 Froude as a historian is his total want of a uniform stand- 
 ard of justice, of the ethical principle which estimates ac- 
 tions as they are in themselves and not in the light of 
 personal like or dislike of his historical personages. Read 
 the two passages which head this chapter. They are spe- 
 cimens of the " outbursts of truest pathos," of tender hu- 
 man sympathy," so lauded by one of his admirers. The 
 historian penned them with reference to the case of Anne 
 Boleyn, and when we reach his narrative of Mary Stuart's 
 death we find that they are not the expression of any abid- 
 ing sentiment or belief, but mere specimens of rhetoric de 
 circonstance, to be classed among those elaborate impromptus 
 carefully labored at leisure with which he ornaments his 
 pages. When he tells us of Mary Stuart's death, we find 
 that so fiir from being painful to him it affords him the 
 most exquisite delight " to dwell upon the words and 
 actions of a poor woman in her moments of misery ; " and 
 we further find that, not content with the record of her 
 vi^ords and actions as furnished by history, he finds it expe- 
 dient to invent others in order to prolong and, if possible, 
 heighten his pleasure. 
 
MR. FROUDE's revenge. 
 
 307 
 
 Hollow brass and tinkling cymbal too is his " miserable 
 duty to be compelled to search for human infirmities, above 
 all when they are the infirmities of a lady^' etc., when we find 
 him complacently inviting his readers to join with him in 
 the gaze of the two brutal earls at the scars left by ill- 
 ness on the shoulders of the helpless victim. 
 
 If Mr Froude really believes the Queen of Scots to be 
 the guilty woman he describes — and we seriously doubt 
 it ; if he attaches any serious signification to the vitupera- 
 tive abuse he showers upon her throughout his work, we 
 can well imagine the bitter disappointment which nmst 
 have seized him when, contemplating his victim at the hour 
 of death and on the edge of the grave, he beholds her raised 
 so infinitely above her persecutors by her dignity and 
 Christian resignation. We can well understand, too, how 
 at the spectacle of what his more conscientious ally (Bur- 
 ton) calls the " noble simplicity of her expiation," this dis- 
 appointment should deepen into an angry rage that seeks 
 revenge. That revenge — the only one in his power — 
 he has taken. 
 
 Friends and enemies of Mary Stuart — sympathizers, 
 proclaimers of her guilt, and advocates of her innocence — 
 have written concerning that most remarkable death scene, 
 of which several descriptions have come down to us; but no 
 such strange and shocking narrative as that of Mr. Froude 
 has ever grieved the judicious and blotted the page of 
 history. His pen alone was equal to such a performance. 
 It is one of the monstrosities of modern literature, and 
 stands on " a bad eminence." 
 
 There was no refinement of cruelt}', there was no excess 
 of brutality left uninflicted on that unfortunate woman as 
 she stood facing the axe and the block. One would think 
 that the veriest ruffian stained with a thousand crimes 
 would, in that hour supreme, be permitted to seek and 
 enjoy unmolested whatever to him might constitute spirit- 
 ual consolation. But it was not allowed this dying woman. 
 
808 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 The only religious aid she required was denied her, although 
 her almoner was in the house. A man whose services she 
 declined, bellowed his remonstrances and warnings in her 
 ear, telling her — by way of encouragement — that she was 
 damned. " He had been evidently instructed to impair 
 the Catholic complexion of the scene," suggests Mr. 
 Froude. We think it highly probable, inasmuch as the 
 official report states that, " according to a direction that he 
 had received the night before, he would have made a godly 
 admonition." etc. From Kent and Shrewsbury there was 
 nought for this unhappy woman but inhumanity and insult. 
 And all this seems to our historian not only eminently 
 proper, but immensely gratifying. 
 
 Sensible to the last, he keeps up his " masking and 
 mumming, with inference, supposition, and insinuation, with 
 forced citations, and patched references." His narrative 
 of the execution is little more than a paraphrase of the 
 account written to Burghley by Richard Wigmore, who was 
 Cecil's secret agent and present at the scene. ^ But the 
 reader must not suppose from the fact that he was a sort of 
 spy and that his account appears from the paraphrase to 
 be so heartless and cynical, that this man Wigmore was 
 utterly vile. He would not seem so if Mr. Froude had 
 not carefully eliminated from his letter every passage and 
 expression which renders justice to Mary Stuart's dignity 
 and Christian resignation. 
 
 And this unhappy woman's bearing on the scaffold, — 
 standing thus face to face with the King of Terrors, and 
 preparing, as best she might amid inhuman interruptions, 
 to meet her God, was all — so Mr. Froude informs us — 
 mere acting ! — a sacrilegious invention he strives to bol- 
 ster by a citation from the anonymous account of Mary's 
 death published in Teulet. Mr. Froude falsifies the cita- 
 tion and falsifies its meaning. Judge. 
 
 1 To this are added a few details from other sources. 
 
FALSIFIED CITATION. 
 
 309 
 
 The Original Passage. 
 
 " Si le plus parfait tragiqiie 
 qui fust jamais venoit h present 
 avec un desir et soing indicible 
 de representer sa contenance, 
 parolles et gestes et fa9on de 
 faire sur un theatre, il pourrait 
 meriter quelques louanges, mais 
 on le trouverait court, faisant 
 demonstration de la conte- 
 nance naturelle et singuliere 
 modestie qui, contre toute ex- 
 pectation regnait en cette prin- 
 cesse, tellement que a grande 
 peine par personnes empruntees 
 (se pourrait 11 representer)." 
 
 By the substitution of a period for a comma at the end 
 of the first half of the sentence, and by the total omission 
 of the latter part, the idea of the writer is left undeveloped 
 and his meaning entirely perverted. That it was written 
 by one of her warmest admirers is Mr. Fronde's assump- 
 tion. On the contrary, the passage itself would appear to 
 come from one who had been prejudiced against her. So 
 far from describing " her bearing as infinitely transcending 
 the power of the most accomplished actor to represent " — 
 thus leaving in doubt whether what was seen in her was 
 artifice or natural, the passage states the powerlesness of 
 any acting, to represent the manifestation of nature in " the 
 unaffected expression and singular modesty which dis- 
 tinguished this princess ; " the " contre toute expectation," 
 appearing to imply some previous prejudice. 
 
 Characteristically ingenious is the device of Mr. Froude 
 to carry out and give force to his dramatic theory by dwell- 
 ing on Mary's rich dress and false hair. If Mary had ar- 
 rayed herself otherwise than she did, her costume might 
 have been properly criticised as singular and affected. It 
 
 As CITED BY Mr. Froude. 
 (xii. 3G2.) 
 " Si le plus parfait tragique 
 qui fust jamais venoit b. present 
 avec un desir et soing indicible 
 de representer sa contenance, 
 parolles et gestes et fa9on de 
 faire sur un theatre, il pourrait 
 meriter quelques louanges, mais 
 on le trouverait court." — Vray 
 Rapport, etc. : Teulet, vol. iv. 
 
310 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 was in strict conformity with the fashion of the age, of 
 which rich dress was a characteristic. When Elizabeth 
 died, slie left eighty afters or wigs ornamented with jewels. 
 They formed at the time a part of every lady's wardrobe, 
 and were of various colors. Mary's omission to wear one 
 would have been thought strange. She had that morning 
 told her women to " dress her as for a festival." Their 
 choice of garments was naturally for the richest from an 
 assortment by no means large. It appears that under her 
 black robe Mary Stuart wore a sort of black jacket. Both 
 these were taken off preparatory to the execution, and 
 under them appeared a body of crimson satin, which with 
 her petticoat of crimson, and a pair of crimson sleeves 
 handed her by one of her ladies, to cover her naked arms, 
 made the dress all red — blood red from head to foot," as 
 Mr. Froude states it in his delight. We are further in- 
 formed that this was all done with design, and that " the 
 pictorial effect must have been appalling." We venture to 
 surmise that a Christian about to stand in the presence of 
 God has but little room in his or her mind for '* pictorial 
 effects," and that Mary Stuart's thoughts in that last hour 
 of her life were not for this world. But see how power- 
 •less is any reasonable surmise in the presence of Mr. 
 Fronde's positive knowledge, for we have his assurance that 
 she gave the subject of this under-clothing careful study, 
 and had her own motives for adopting it. Listen. " Her 
 reasons for adopting so extraordinary a costume must be 
 left to conjecture. It is only certain ^ that it must have been 
 carefully studied,'' etc. (xii. 359.) When the head of the 
 victim was laid on the block, the executioner, a stalwart 
 man, brought down his axe ; but it was an uncertainly 
 
 1 A distinguished English historan aptly remarks that " Intuitive cer- 
 tainty is beyond the reach of argument." iJ. A. Froude, \'o\. xii. p. 311.) 
 But this is said in connection with a stern rebuke administered by liim to 
 persons pretending to interpret the motives of Queen Elizabeth — " those 
 to whom it has been given to have a perfect insight into the motives of 
 human actions." 
 
HISTORIAN AND HEADSMAN. 
 
 311 
 
 directed blow and only inflicted a ghastly wound. We 
 have already cited the passage from Mr. Fronde's favorite 
 " Vray Rapport" which relates this incident. He does not 
 see that passage. It is a well established principle of that 
 historian that no one who conies in hostile contact with 
 Mary Stuart shall be capable of error. And so we are 
 told : The blow fell on the knot of the handkerchief, 
 and scarcely broke the skin." 
 
 But the gratification^ the joy manifested throughout this 
 narrative of brutality, bigotry, and blood, culminates in de- 
 light when he tells us — 
 
 " The labored illusion vanished. The lady who had knelt be- 
 fore the block was in the maturity of grace and loveliness. The 
 executioner, when he raised the head, as usual, to show it to the 
 crowd, exposed the withered features of a grizzled, wrinkled old 
 woman." 
 
 We are inclined to believe that what was seen was a 
 face whose features were yet convulsed by the agonizing 
 suffering from the executioner's first blow.^ 
 
 When Mary Stuart bowed her head to the axe which 
 should end her sufferings, the executioner remarked that 
 her fingers were upon the block in such a position under 
 her neck, that when he struck, they would be cut off. Th« 
 man's trade was death, his calling brutal, his occupation 
 bloody. But he had no desire needlessly to multiply the 
 horror of the scene by maiming and mangling even a body 
 which must, the next instant, be a lifeless corpse ; and he 
 gently removed the hands. 
 
 The example of this social pariah should have com- 
 mended itself to Mr. Froude, for whom it is not enough 
 that this woman should be made to suffer for a crime of 
 which she was innocent — not enough that inhuman men 
 should mock her infirmities in that awful moment,' — not 
 enough that in her preparation for death she should be 
 denied the consolations of her own faith, — not enough 
 1 See Appendix No. 12. 
 
312 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 that a relijjious bioot should be ordered to thrust himself 
 between the victim and her Maker — not enough that she 
 should receive vociferous assurance that her damnation 
 was certain. 
 
 Not enough all this. He must do more. He is deter- 
 mined that Mary Stuart shall not thus escape him, and — 
 standing on this side of a grave, cold in the shadow of 
 three hundred years — we shudder as we see him warm up 
 to his ghoul-like task, travestie her bearing, mock her 
 words, inventory her garments, play the costumer, degrade 
 the historian into a man-milliner, and — falsifying her mo- 
 tives — blasphemously challenge as dramatic affectation the 
 last appeal of a poor soul to God, betray a revolting satis- 
 faction in her suffering, positive delight in the discovery 
 that she was no longer in the maturity of grace and love- 
 liness, and, with a hideous leer, call on his readers to feast 
 with him their gaze on the withered features of a wrinkled 
 old woman, assuring them, meanwhile, that she leaves the 
 world with a lie on her lips ! 
 
 We shrink from the revolting horror of the picture as 
 we wonder at its mendacity. 
 
 Decidedly, the headsman with his bloody axe rises in 
 our gaze, beside this historian, to the full proportions of one 
 of nature's noblemen. 
 
CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 "The one primary qualification in a historian is that he should inspire 
 confidence in the minds of educated readers, and a fair belief in his guid- 
 ance. Mr. Froude utterly fails to do this." — London Quarterly Review. 
 
 As already stated, serious doubt exists as to whether or 
 not Mr. Froude really believes the Queen of Scots to be 
 the guilty woman he describes.^ We have a theory that, 
 as an intelligent gentleman, and as one who has had before 
 his eyes the clearest proofs of Mary Stuart's innocence, he 
 does not assuredly credit her guilt, nor does he attach the 
 slightest credit to Buchanan's Msehoods concerning her. 
 
 This view of Mr. Froude, as a historian, may excite some 
 susprise. Nevertheless, we are satisfied of its correctness, 
 and thus explain it. 
 
 Mr. Froude, evidently, does not approve of the humdrum 
 plodding honesty of the conscientious historian who, in 
 statements concerning the great dead of bygone ages, is 
 profuse in authority, sober in imputation of motives, and 
 totally abstemious in flights of imagination. He is dis- 
 gusted with the blameless inanity of sincerity, with the 
 imprudent weakness of telling all the truth, with the silly 
 hesitation to be unscrupulous where a point is to be made, 
 and with the slow pace of a style unadorned by fancy 
 sketches and sensational pictures. 
 
 Thus worshipping art more than truth, he resolved to 
 give to the world a history which should be read for its 
 piquancy and its brilliancy — which should be at once 
 better than a novel and as good as a play. 
 
 1 A belief" credible only to those who form opinions by their wills, and 
 believe or disbelieve as they choose." (ii. 488.) 
 
314 
 
 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 Such, it seems to us, was his high purpose. And if any 
 object that we attribute to this distinguished historian a 
 questionable motive, we reply that we have the best author- 
 ity for so doing, and that we frauie our opinion on a prin- 
 ciple which Mr. Fronde himself openly declares to be his. 
 Speaking of Queen Elizabeth, our historian says (xi. 27) : — 
 
 " How she worked in detail, how uncertain, how vacillat- 
 ing, how false and unscrupulous she could be when oc- 
 casion tempted, has appeared already, and will appear 
 more and more ; but her object in itself was excellent ; 
 AND THOSE WHO PURSUE HIGH PURPOSES 
 THROUGH CROOKED WAYS DESERVE BET- 
 TER OF MANKIND, ON THE WHOLE, THAN 
 THOSE WHO PICK THE] R WAY IN BLAMELESS 
 INANITY, AND, IF INNOCENT OF ILL, ARE 
 EQUALLY INNOCENT OF GOODr 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 " Catherine de Medicis ne devait k son titre de reine que 
 I'honneur de donner des enfants au roi. La longue contrainte 
 ou vecut Catherine, les habitudes de froide reserve et de con- 
 stantc dissimulation qu'elle s'imposa — formerent dans I'ombre 
 ce g6nie Machiavelique et ce scepticisme universel qu'elle de- 
 ploya dcpuis dans de si terribles conjonctures." — Martin, His- 
 toire de France, vol. ix. p. 471. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 In describing the entrance of Charles and his mother into the 
 council hall when Charles was saluted King, Sismondi says : La 
 reine mere ne s'etait point flattee de trouver un tel accord, une 
 telle promptitude ; accomtumee ^ etre peu consulte'e, peu menagee, 
 k ce que sa qualite d'etrangere excitat contre elle la defiance et la 
 haine, loin de compter sur ses droits, elle ne comptait pas me me 
 sur ceux de son fils, .... elle n'aimait personne, et n'etait 
 aimee de personne." — Histoire des F?'anQais, vol. xviii. p. 187. 
 
 " Catherine de Medicis, qui depuis vingt sept ans qu'elle etait 
 en France, avait toujours ete ecartee du pouvoir, loin d'etre 
 reconnue comme ayant droit k la tutelle ou a la regence de son 
 fils, se voyait comme femme et comme etrangere I'objet d'une 
 violente jalousie." — Sismondi, Histoire des Fran(;aiSj yo\. xviii. 
 p. 185. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 M. Mignet, a distinguished French historian, has written a 
 " Histoire de Marie Stuart," in the preparation of which he ap- 
 pears to be the victim of a work constantly cited by him as 
 **Memoires de I'Estat de la France sous Charles IX." Many 
 
816 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 scholars familiar with the literature of the Mary Stuart contro- 
 versy failed to recognize this work as an authority heretofore 
 received. On examination the " Memoires " turn out to be noth- 
 ing more than a French translation of Buchanan's " Detection," 
 and of the silver-casket letters with an absurdly ambitious title. 
 "With this short explanation the reader will readily see in what 
 light Mary Stuart must be made to appear in M. Mignet's pages. 
 We have Buchanan ail over again. He also quotes De Thou 
 without appearing to be aware that De Thou also is a mere repe- 
 tition of Buchanan. Away from this source of inspiration, M. 
 Mignet displays many of the traits that have won for his other 
 historical works such high appreciation. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 " Apres la mort de son mari, la jeune veuve de Francois 11. qui 
 s'etait attire la haine de sa belle mere Catherine de Medicis en 
 servant trop vivement les interets de ses oncles de Guise, se retira 
 en Lorraine durant quelques mois; ses oncles qui ne I'aimaient 
 que comme un instrument utile a leur politique, la pi'esserent, la 
 forcerent pour ainsi dire de retourner en Ecosse pour tacher d'y 
 relever le parti catholique. La pauvre Marie partit avec de- 
 sespoir." — Martin, Histoire de France, vol. x. p. 17 7. 
 
 No. V. 
 
 PRINCE ALEXANDER LABANOFF. 
 
 " Lettres, Instructions, et Memoires de Marie Stuart, Reine d' Ecosse, 
 puhlies sur les originaux et les Manuscrits du State Paper Office 
 de Londres, et des principales archives hihliotlieques de V Europe." 
 7 vols. 8vo. London and Paris. 
 
 This admirable collection is the result of fourteen years' re- 
 search among state archives, collections, and libraries throughout 
 Europe. It is composed mainly of letters and documents written 
 by Mary Stuart. They number seven hundred and thirty-six 
 (736), of which more than four hundred were unknown until pub- 
 lished in this work. Out of these four hundred new letters, about 
 two hundred found in the English State Paper Office, were mostly 
 intercepted letters of Mary Stuart which never reached their 
 destination. In these papers and letters the reader may see 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 317 
 
 Mary Stuart's soul and intellect reflected almost day by day 
 throughout her reign, and no man can read them and not be im- 
 pressed by the elevation of her mind, the soundness of her judg- 
 ment, and the purity of her thoughts. No man, moreover, can 
 read them and believe that these letters and the casket-letters 
 could ever possibly come from the same source. 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 EXTRACT FROM A CONTEMPORARY BALLAD (1568). 
 
 *' For they, to seem more innocent of this most heinous deed. 
 Did forthwith catch four murderers, and put to death with speed; 
 As Hepburn, Dalgleisli, Powry too, John Hay made up the mess; 
 Which four, when they were put to death, tlie treason did confess, 
 And said that Moray, Morton too, with others of that rout, 
 Were guilty of that murder vile, though now they look so stout. 
 Yet some perchance may think that I speak for affection here, 
 Though I would so, three thousand can herein true witness bear, 
 Who present were as well as I at the execution time. 
 And heard how these, in conscience prickt, confessed who did the crime." 
 Contemporary Ballad, Tom Treuth, State Paper MS., December, 1568. 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 BOND MADE BY A NUMBER OF THE NOBILITY IN FAVOR OF 
 THE EARL OF BOTHWELL, 19TH APRIL, 1567. 
 
 " We undersubscribing, understanding, that altho' the noble 
 and mighty Lord James Earl Both well. Lord Hailes, Crichton, 
 and Liddesdale, Great Admiral of Scotland, and Lieutenant to 
 our Sovereign Lady over all the Marches thereof, being not only 
 bruited and calumniated by placards privily affixed on the public 
 places of the Kirk of Edinburg, and othervvays slandered by- 
 his evil willers and privy Enemies, as Art and Part of the hein- 
 ous Murder of the King, the Queen's Majesty's late Husband, but 
 also by special Letters sent to her Highness by the Earl of Len- 
 nox and dilated of the same crime, who in his Letters earnestly 
 flesired and required the said Earl Bothwell to be tried of the 
 said murder, — he, by condign Inquest and Assize of certain No- 
 blemen his Peers, and other Barons of good reputation, is found 
 
318 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 guiltless and innocent of the odious crime objected to him, and 
 acquitted thereof, conform to the Laws of this Realm ; who also, 
 for further trial of his part, has offered himself readie to defend 
 and maintain his innocence against all that will impugn the same 
 by the Law of Arms, and so has omitted nothing for the perfect 
 trial of his accusation, that any Nobleman of honour, or by the 
 Laws ought to underlie and accomplish. And We considering 
 the Ancientness and Nobleness of his House, the honourable and 
 good service done by his predecessors, and specially by himself, 
 to our Sovereign, and for the defence of this her Highness' Realm 
 against the enemies thereof and the Amity and Friendship which 
 80 long has persevered betwixt his House and every one of us, 
 and others our Predecessors in particular : and therewithal see- 
 ing how all Noblemen, being in reputation, honour, and credit 
 with their Sovereign, are commonly subject to sustain as well the 
 vain bruits of the inconstant common people, as the accusations 
 and calumnies of their adversaries, envious of our Place and Vo- 
 cation, which we of our duty and friendship are astricted and 
 debt-bound to repress and withstand; THEREFORE oblige 
 us, and each one of us, upon our Faith and Honours, and Truth 
 in our bodies, as we are Noblemen, and will answer to God, that 
 in case hereafter any manner of person or persons, in whatsoever 
 manner, shall happen to insist further to the slander and calum- 
 niation of the said Earl of Bothwell, as participant. Art or Part, 
 of the said heinous murder, whereof ordinary Justice has ac- 
 quitted him, and for which he has offered to do his Devoir by the 
 Law of Arms in manner above rehearsed ; we, and every one of 
 us, by ourselves, our kin, friends, assisters, partakers, and all that 
 will do for us, shall take true, honest, plain, and upright Part with 
 him, to the Defence and Maintenance of his Quarrell, with our 
 bodies, heritage, and goods, against his private or public calum- 
 niators, byepast or to come, or any others presuming anything 
 in Word or Deed to his Reproach, Dishonour, or Infamy. More- 
 over, weighing and considering the time present, and how our 
 Sovereign the Queen's Majesty is now destitute of a Husband, 
 in the which solitary state the Coramonweale of this Realme may 
 not permit her Highnesse to continue and endure, but at some 
 time her Highness in appearance may be inclined to yield into a 
 Marriage ; and therefore, in case the former affectionate and 
 hearty service of the said Earl done to her Majesty from time to 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 319 
 
 time, and his other good Qualities and Behaviour, may move her 
 Majesty so far to humble herself, as, preferring one of her native 
 born subjects unto all foreign Princes, to take to Husband the 
 said Earl, We and every one of us undersubscribing, upon our 
 Honours and Fidelity, oblige us and promise, not only to further, 
 advance, and set forward the Marriage to be solemnized and 
 completed betwixt her Highness and the said Noble Lord, with 
 our Votes, Counsel, Fortification, and Assistance in Word and 
 Deed, at such time as it shall please her Majesty to think it con- 
 venient, and how soon the Laws shall leave it to be done ; but 
 in case any should presume directly or indirectly, openly, or un- 
 der whatsoever Colour or Pretence, to hinder, hold back, or dis- 
 turb the said Marriage, we shall, in that behalf, esteem, hold, and 
 repute the Hinderers, Adversaries, or Disturbers thereof, as our 
 common Enemies and evil Willers ; and notwithstanding the 
 same, take part and fortify the said Earl to the said Marriage, so 
 far as it may please our Sovereign Lady to allow ; and therein 
 shall spend and bestow our Lives and Goods against all that live 
 or die may, as we shall answer to God, and upon our own Fidel- 
 ities and Conscience ; and in case we do to the contrary, never 
 to have Reputation or Credit in no Time hereafter, but to be ac- 
 counted unworthy and faithless Traitors. 
 
 " In Witness whereof, we have subscribed these presents, as fol- 
 lows, at Edinburg, the 19th day of April, the year of God 
 1^67 years." 
 
 No. VHL 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM A REMARKABLE ARTICLE BY DR. JOHNSON.^ 
 
 " It has now been fashionable for near half a century to defame 
 and vilify the House of Stuart, and to exalt and magnify the 
 reign of Elizabeth. The Stuarts have found few apologists, for 
 the dead cannot pay for praise." 
 
 After recapitulating the dates involved, he makes these points 
 among others. That, — 
 
 First, " These letters thus timorously and suspiciously commu- 
 nicated were all the evidence against Mary ; for the servants of 
 Bothwell, executed for the murder of the King, acquitted the 
 Queen at the hour of death. 
 
 1 Gentleman's Magazine for October, 1760. 
 
320 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Second, " The letters were alleged as the reason for the Queen's 
 imprisonment, altho' she was imprisoned on the 16th, and the 
 letters are not pretended to have been intercepted before the 
 20th. 
 
 Third, "The authority of these letters should have been put 
 out of doubt, yet there is no witness but Morton and Crawford. 
 Dalgleish was hanged, without interrogatory as to the letters, 
 and Paris, altho' then in prison, was not yet tried ; nor was his 
 confession produced until after his death." 
 
 He then disposes of Robertson's and Hume's objections. 
 
 As further reasons for doubting the genuineness of the casket- 
 letters he says : — 
 
 "The difference between written and subscribed, and wholly 
 written gives Tytler just reason to suspect ; first, a forgery, and 
 then a variation of the forgery. It is, indeed , very remarkable, 
 that the Jirst account asserts more than the second, though the 
 second contains all the truth ; for the letters, whether written by 
 the Queen or not, were not subscribed by her ; and had the 
 second account differed from the Jirst only by something added, 
 the first might have contained truth, though not all the truth ; 
 but, as the second corrects the first by elimination, the first cannot 
 be free from fraud." And concludes, " That the letters were 
 forged is now made so probable that perhaps they will never 
 more be cited as testimonies." 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 Buchanan's " detection." 
 
 Buchanan was an apostate monk, saved from the gallows by 
 Mary, and loaded with her favors. An eye-witness of her dig- 
 nity, her goodness, and her purity, he afterward described her as 
 the vilest of wonlen. He sold his pen, and has been properly 
 described as "unrivaled in baseness, peerless in falsehood, su- 
 preme in ingratitude." His " Detection " was published (1570) in 
 Latin, and copies were immediately sent by Cecil to Elizabeth's 
 Ambassador in Paris with instructions to circulate them ; "/or 
 they ivill come to good effect to disgrace her, lohich must be done 
 before other purposes can be obtained." This shameful work has 
 been the inspiration of most of the portraits drawn of Mary. De 
 Thou in France, Jebb, and many others in England, have all 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 321 
 
 followed him. Spotiswoode is little more than a digest of Knox 
 and Buchanan clad in decent language. Holinshed, too, was 
 deceived by Buchanan ; but it is doubtful if he dared write 
 otherwise than he did, between the terrors of Cecil's spies and 
 Elizabeth's mace. De Thou is an authority generally looked 
 up to with great respect, but when he is quoted in any matter 
 concerning Mary Stuart, it is substantially Buchanan who is 
 really cited, for De Thou on all points of Scottish history depends 
 on and copies Buchanan. He himself states this fact in his cor- 
 respondence with Camden and Casaubon. (Ed. of 1734.) MM. 
 Mignet and Froude ought to be aware of this fact, yet they cite 
 De Thou as though he were an original authority. Buchanan 
 accompanied Mary to Scotland, and a letter of Randolph to 
 Cecil (1562) speaks of him as reading Livy with the Queen 
 every day at Holyrood. The list of Mary's books at that time 
 shows the extent of her accomplishments. No mere tyro in 
 Latin ever found much pleasure in Livy. Buchanan was one of 
 the first Latin scholars of the age, although Hallam (" Tit. of 
 Europe") thinks him overrated. Li 15G4 Mary presented Bu- 
 chanan with a pension of £500 Scots, and made him lay abbot 
 of Crossraguel Abbey, an appointment which gave him inde- 
 pendence. In 1565-6 he brought out his first complete edition 
 of his admirable paraphrase of the Psalms, dedicating it to the 
 Queen, in the celebrated epigram which excels any literary com- 
 pliment ever paid to a European sovereign. Her merit, he said, 
 surpassed her good fortune ; her virtue, her years ; her courage, 
 her sex ; and the nobleness of her qualities, her nobility of race. 
 The Latin is admirable : — 
 
 "Quae sortem antevenis meritis, virtutibus annos, 
 Sexum animis, morum nobilitate genus." 
 
 The most assiduous of her flatterers while in power, he pursued 
 her in adversity with a malice but little short of diabolical. We 
 find him in Murray's pay and attendance in producing the silver- 
 casket letters at York, and at Westminster. 
 
 In speaking of the loose and violent accusations of criminal 
 love between Mary and Botliwell, uttered by Buchanan and 
 Knox, the Presbyterian historian, Dr. Robertson, says that " such 
 delicate transitions of passion can be discerned only by those 
 who are admitted near the persons of the parties. Neither Knox 
 21 
 
322 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 nor Buchanan enjoyed these advantages. Their humble station 
 allowed them only a distant access to the Queen and her favor- 
 ite. And the ardor of their zeal, as well as the violence of their 
 prejudices, rendered their opinions rash, precipitate, and inaccu- 
 rate." The " distant access " is too mild a statement. Knox 
 fled from Edinburgh when Riccio was murdered, and did not 
 return until Mary was a prisoner at Lochleven, and during all 
 this period Buchanan no longer went to Holyrood. 
 
 The Episcopal Bishop Keith denounces Buchanan as " a vile 
 and shameless traducer," and says his " Detection " " sufficiently 
 detects itself to be one continued piece of satirical romance." 
 "And in general," he adds (vol. ii. p. 108), "by the corrections 
 which I havamade from original records, of almost all the facts 
 hitherto touched by Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Knox, which have any 
 relation to their sovereign the Queen, and how grossly, if not 
 maliciously, they have departed from the truth, and how little 
 ground posterity has to rely upon their representations in other 
 facts, when supported by no better authority than theirs." Even 
 Mr. Burton cannot conceal the fact that he beheves Buchanan to 
 be an unmitigated liar, who writes calumnies with high art and 
 superior finish of style. Of course, this is stated euphuistically, 
 thus : " But while those who have gone into the intricacies of 
 the story cannot accept the conclusions of the ' Detection,' they 
 cannot read it without acknowledging that it is a great work of 
 rhetorical art." (Vol. iv. p. 449.) Further, he says : "Everything 
 with him (Buchanan) is utterly and palpably vile and degrading, 
 without any redeeming or mitigating elements. A great master 
 of rhetoric, he sets forth Mary's guilt in a language in which in- 
 vective is perhaps more at home than in any other." 
 
 We have seen Cecil's appreciation of the " Detection " in his in- 
 structions for its circulation, and the raison d'etre of the book is 
 best explained by that statesman's certificate i accompanying the 
 original edition. The certificate was intended to accredit the 
 book, but as it let out the important fact that it was, in point of 
 fact, dictated by the Scotch lords (Murray & Co.) who were 
 Mary's accusers and persecutors, it was afterwards suppressed. 
 
 Such is the origin of the Detection," and it may be added that 
 it is so filthy that but few persons can read it through, and that 
 its most serious charges are totally unsupported by a tittle of 
 1 Ante, p. 221. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 323 
 
 contemporary testimony. Buchanan was copied by Knox in 
 Scotland, and by De Thou in France. He forms the inspiration 
 of Messrs. Fronde and Mignet. The hitter never mentions him, 
 the former quotes him at every page, but without naming him. 
 llie venerable Camden says that Buchanan in his last illness 
 wished " he might live so long till, by recalling the truth, he 
 might even with his blood wipe away those aspersions which he 
 had by his bad tongue unjustly cast upon Mary." 
 
 No. X. 
 
 MARY Stuart's prisons in England. 
 
 Carlisle, from May 19, 1568 — two months. 
 Bolton, from July 16, 1568 — six months. 
 Tutbury, from February 9, 1569 — two months. 
 Wingfield, from April 7, 1569 — seven months. 
 Coventry, from November 14, 1569 — one month. 
 Tutbury, from January 2, 1570 — four months. 
 Chats worth, from May 17, 1570 — five months. 
 Shefiield, from November 28, 1570 — thirteen years and nine 
 months. 
 
 Buxton Baths, a visit for health. 
 Wingfield, from September 3, 1584 — three months. 
 Tutbury, from January 13, 1585 — eleven months. 
 Chartley, from December 24, 1585 — one month. 
 Fotheringay, from September 25, 1586 — nine months. 
 The scafibld, February, 1587. 
 
 No. XL 
 
 EXTRACT FROM PREFACE TO CALENDAR OF THE STATE PA- 
 PERS (1509-1603) RELATING TO SCOTLAND, PRESERVED IN 
 THE STATE PAPER DEPARTMENT OF HER MAJESTY'S PUBLIC 
 RECORD OFFICE. SCOTTISH SERIES, VOL. I. PREFACE BY 
 MARKHAM JOHN THARPE, ESQ. Pp. XXV, XXvi. 
 
 " The second series of papers relates to Mary Queen of Scots 
 after her flight from Scotland, and consists of the correspondence 
 which passed between Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, and 
 their respective ministers ; the reports and letters of the nobles 
 
324 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 and others who were successively appointed to take charge of 
 the captive Queen ; the correspondence of her friends and ser- 
 vants ; some of the evidence supposed to have been produced 
 against the Queen at York and elsewhere ; the alleged love-let- 
 ters to the Earl of Bothwell ; and a large mass of papers which 
 it is stated were seized in the Queen's apartments at Chartley 
 Castle in 1586, upon the discovery of Babington's conspiracy 
 against Queen Elizabeth. These papers consist chiefly of letters 
 in cipher with contemporary deciphers, and it is stated that they 
 were written by Queen Mary to foreign princes and divers eccle- 
 siastics and others, her agents abroad, for the reestablishment of 
 the Romish religion in England, and the subversion of the throne 
 of Queen Elizabeth. 
 
 " The reader's attention is requested not only to the' contents 
 of these records, but also to the circumstances under which they 
 are preserved to us. The evidence they contain is all-important 5 
 there is abundance of insinuation, there is much assertion of 
 guilt, but proof nowhere as far as the compiler has been able to 
 seek it. lie wishes therefore to point out especially, first, that 
 the monstrous letters to Bothwell are not in Queen Mary's hand- 
 writing ; secondly, that' there is not in the State Papers here 
 described, any one which shows participation on the Queen's part 
 in the murder of Darnley ; and, lastly, that all the letters in 
 cipher, above alluded to, profess only to be copies, copies in 
 cipher, and copies deciphered. They are nearly all in the hand- 
 writing of one Mr. Thomas Phelippes, a person of much ingenuity 
 and ability in the use of his pen, who was employed by the Eng- 
 lish ministers to decipher letters. Occasionally he counterfeited 
 them ; and his conduct was subsequently investigated and brought 
 to light in the reign of King James. The attention of many 
 readers will be arrested by those passages wherein Mr. Phelippes 
 and others artfully connect Queen Mary's name with BabiuLi- 
 ton's; and some may wonder, perhaps, what those plans of Mi-. 
 Phelippes could have been which the captive Queen's stern 
 keeper, Sir Amias Powlet dared not put in execution." 
 
 No. XII. 
 
 There exist to this day two mute witnesses on this point. 
 The first is a picture of the severed head of Mary Stuart in the 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 325 
 
 Museum of United Service Club. It was evidently taken before 
 the features wei-e composed after the death agony, for the broad 
 eyelids are still open. 
 
 The second is also a picture of the severed head taken a day 
 later. It is on a dish which is placed on a table covered with 
 scarlet velvet. A roll of parchment hanging from the table bears 
 the inscription, — 
 
 Maria Scotice Regina 
 9. Feby. 1587 
 
 — with the signature of the painter, Amyas Cawood. This pic- 
 ture was presented to Sir Walter Scott by a Russian gentle- 
 man. In describing " The Home of Sir Walter Scott," Haw- 
 thorne, in his " English Note-book," thus speaks of it : — 
 
 " I am not quite sure whether I saw all these pictures in the 
 drawing-room, or some of them in the dining-room ; but the one 
 that struck me most — and very much indeed — was the head of 
 Mary Queen of Scots, literally the head cut off, and lying on a 
 dish. It is said to have been painted by an Italian or French 
 artist two days after her death. The hair curls or flows all about 
 it ; the face is of a death-like hue, but has an expression of quiet, 
 after much pain and trouble — very beautiful, very sweet and 
 sad ; and it affected me strongly with the horror and strange- 
 ness of such a head being severed from its body. Methinks I 
 should not like to have it always in the room with me." 
 
 No. XIII. 
 
 COPY OP A RELATION OF THE EARL OF BOTHWELL'S DEC- 
 LARATION AT HIS DEATH, BY ONE THAT WAS PRESENT. 
 
 " The Earl of Both well being sick unto death in the Castle of 
 Malmay (Malmoe ?) made solemn faith of what here followeth, 
 viz : The Bishop of Schonen, together with four great Lords, 
 viz, Berin Gowes, Governor of the Castle of Malmay, Otto Braw 
 of the Castle of Ottenbrucht, Paris Braw of the Castle of Vescat, 
 and Mons. Gallensterne of the Castle of Falkenstrie, and together 
 likewise with the four Bailiffs of the town, prayed the Earle to 
 declare freely and truly what he knew of the death of the late 
 King Henry (Darnley) and of the authors thereof according as 
 he should answer before God at the Day of Judgment where all 
 things, how secret soever they may be here, ^hall be laid open. 
 
326 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 " Then the said Earl, declaring that through his present great 
 ■weakness he was not able to discourse all the several steps of 
 these things, testified that the Queen was innocent of that death, 
 and that only he himself, his friends, and some of the nobility 
 were the authors of it. 
 
 " And being thereto pressed by the Lords to name some of the 
 persons that were guilty, he named my Lord James, Earl of Mur- 
 ray, my Lord Robert, Abbot of Holyrood, both of them bastard 
 brothers of the Queen, the Earls of Crawford, Argyll, Glencau-n, 
 Boyd, the Lprds of Lethington, Buccleugh and Grange." 
 
 See the entire paper in Keith, vol. iii. p. 305 ; and for a thor- 
 ough discussion of its authenticity and value, see Notes to 
 Aytoun's « Bothwell," p. 259. 
 
 No. XIY. 
 
 In presenting this letter Lodge says ("Illustrations of British 
 History," vol. ii. pp. 26 7-277) : " It well deserves the attention of 
 those who would obtain a clear knowledge of Mary's true char- 
 acter, and of l^Uizabeth's detestable conduct towards her in the 
 last years of her imprisonment." 
 
 The letter has been frequently translated into English, but by 
 no one so admirably as by the late Donald MacLeod (author of 
 "Bloodstone," " Life of Sir Walter Scott "), whose version, from 
 his " Life of Mary Queen of Scots," is here given. 
 
 The letter was written from her prison at Sheffield, November 
 8, 1582, in the fourteenth year of her captivity. For the best of 
 reasons Elizabeth did not answer it. She could not. She dared 
 not : — 
 
 " Madame, — In consequence of what I have learned about 
 the late conspiracies against my poor son, in Scotland, and having 
 every occasion, from my own experience, to fear the consequences, 
 I must employ what life and strength I have remaining, to empty 
 my heart to you ere I die, of my righteous and melancholy com- 
 plaints. I desire that this letter may serve you so long as you 
 live after me, for a perpetual testimony engraven on your con- 
 science ; for my acquittal in the eyes of posterity, and for the 
 shame and confusion of all who, by your own avowal, have so 
 cruelly and unworthily treated me here, and brought me to the 
 extremity in which I now am. But inasmuch as their designs, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 327 
 
 practices, actions, and procedures, detestable as they have been, 
 have always prevailed with you, against ray most just remon- 
 strances and my sincere conduct, and since tire power which you 
 hold has always made you seem right in the sight of men, 1 now 
 have recourse to the living God, who has established us both, 
 under Himself, for the government of his people. 
 
 " I call upon Him, in this extreme hour of my urgent affliction, 
 to render to you and to me, that part of merit or of demerit, that 
 each owes to the other, even as He will render it on his final 
 judgment. And remember, Madame, that from Him we can dis- 
 guise nothing, by the coloring and the policy of this world, as my 
 enemies, under you, have temporarily disguised from men, and 
 perhaps from you, their subtle and malicious inventions and their 
 godless dexterities. In his name, therefore, and before Him as 
 judge between you and me, I will maintain : first, That by the 
 agents, spies, and secret messengers, sent in your name to Scot- 
 land while I was still there, my subjects have been corrupted, 
 tampered with, and fexcited to rebel against me, to make attempts 
 against my own person, and in a word, to say, do, undertake, and 
 execute whatever, during my troubles, has occurred in that coun- 
 try. Of this I Avill now present no other verification than the 
 confession of one who has since been one of the most advanced,! 
 and the testimony of those confronted with him ; of one advanced 
 for the good service he has done ; and who, had I then done him 
 justice, would not now, by favor of his ancient acquaintance, have 
 renewed the same practices against my son. Neither would he 
 have furnished to my treacherous and rebel subjects who sought 
 refuge with you, the aid and support that they have received 
 since my detention here ; a support without which those traitors 
 would not, I think, have prevailed then ; nor have subsisted 
 since then so long as they have done. 
 
 " When in my prison of Lochleven, the late Throckmorton 
 counseled me, in your name^ to sign the act of abdication, which he 
 said would be presented to me, and which he assured was value- 
 less ; and valueless it has ever been esteemed in every portion of 
 Christendom, except here, where even open force has been lent 
 to support its authors. On your conscience, Madame, would you 
 recognize such liberty and power in your subjects? Yet my 
 authority was given by my subjects to my son while utterly in-' 
 1 Randolph. 
 
828 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 capable of exercising it, and since he has arrived at a proper age 
 to act for himself, and, when I would have legitimately assured 
 him in it, it is suddenly torn from him, made over to two or three 
 traitors,^ who, having already robbed him of the reality, will soon 
 rob him also, as they did' me, of the name and title, should he 
 contradict them at all, and perhaps of his life also if God pro- 
 vides not for his preservation. 
 
 " So soon as I escaped from Lochleven, and was about to give 
 battle to my rebellious lords, I sent you back, by a gentleman, a 
 diamond ring which I had previously received from you in token 
 and assurance that you would aid me against those very rebels, 
 and even, should I retire towards you, that you would come in 
 person to the froniier to assist me ; and this was confirmed to me 
 by various other messages. This promise, coming reiterated 
 from your own mouth (or if not your ministers have frequently 
 deceived me), caused me to put so great confidence in you, that 
 when my field was lost, I came at once to throw myself into your 
 arms, if I might have that privilege as well as the rebels. But 
 on my road to find you, behold me arrested on my way, envi- 
 roned with guards, confined in fortresses, and finally reduced, 
 shamelessly, into the captivity which is now killing me ; me who 
 have already suffered a thousand mortal pangs. 
 
 " I know you will allege what passed between the late Duke of 
 Norfolk and me ; but I maintain that there was nothing in our 
 dealings to your prejudice nor against the public good of this 
 realm ; and that the treaty was formed by the advice and still 
 existing signatures of the first men of your then council, with an 
 assurance that you too would favor it. How would such person- 
 ages undertake to persuade you to approve of an act which would 
 destroy your life, honor, and crown, as you declare to all ambas- 
 sadors and others who speak to you of me ? 
 
 " Meanwhile, my rebels, perceiving that their precipitate course 
 was carrying them further than they anticipated, and the truth 
 having appeared that what they uttered against me were slanders, 
 before the conference to tvhich I voluntarily submitted in this coun- 
 try,^ in order to clear myself publicly in open assembly of your 
 
 1 Lennox, Mar, Morton, etc. 
 
 2 Ella verite eslant apparue des impostures qu'on semoit de moy, par la 
 Conference a Inquelleje me souhmis voluntairemeni en ce pays.'" It is this 
 sentence which Labanoff says has been generally ill rendered, v. 322. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 329 
 
 deputies and mine, many among them returned to their loyalty ; 
 and for this they were pursued by your own forces, besieged in 
 Edinburgh Castle ; one of the first among them poisoned ; i and 
 another, the least blamable among them, most cruelly hanged,^ 
 although, at your request, I had twice caused them to lay down 
 their arms, under assurance of agreement, which perhaps my 
 enemies never even intended. 
 
 " For a long time I was willing to try whether patience would 
 mitigate the rigorous treatment to which I have been subjected, 
 especially during these ten years past ; and I accommodated my- 
 self exactly to the order prescribed, during my captivity in this 
 house, as well with regard to the number and quality of my ser- 
 vitors, as to the diet and exercise necessary for my health. I 
 have lived hitherto as quietly and peaceably as any one of far 
 lower rank and f\ir more obliged to you than ever I have been ; 
 even depriving myself, to remove all shadow of suspicion or dis- 
 trust on your part, of the right to demand intelligence from my 
 son and my country. There was neither right nor reason in 
 refusing me this intelligence, particularly about my son, but in- 
 stead of that, they labored to influence him against me, so to en- 
 feeble both by dissension. You will say I was permitted to send 
 to him three years ago. His captivity in Sterling, under the 
 tjTanny of Morton, was the cause of your permission, as the lib- 
 erty he has since enjoyed is the cause of your refusing a similar 
 permission all this past year. 
 
 " I have at various times made overtures for the establishment 
 of a sound amity between us, and a sure understanding between 
 our two kingdoms for the future. Commissioners were sent to 
 me for that purpose at Chatsworth about eleven years ago. The 
 ambassadors of France and my own treated of it with your own 
 self And I, throughout the past year, made every possible ad- 
 vantageous proposition to Beale.3 And what is the result ? My 
 good intentions are mistaken ; the sincerity of my acts neglected 
 and calumniated ; the condition of my affairs made worse by 
 delays, surmises, and such other artifices, and, to conclude, worse 
 and worse treatment every day, no matter what I may have done 
 to deserve the contrary. My too long, useless, and ruinous pa- 
 
 1 Maitland of Lethington. 2 Sir W. Kirkaldy of Grange. 
 
 8 Secretary of Elizabetli's council, sent really as a spy, ostensibly to treat 
 ■with Mary. See her letter to him. Labanoff, v. 288. 
 
330 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 tience has brought me to such a point, that my enemies, accus- 
 tomed from of old to do me evil, now think they have a right by 
 prescription to use me, not as a prisoner (which in reason I can- 
 not be) but as a slave, whose life and death depends, regardless 
 of God's law or of man's, upon their tyranny alone. 
 
 "I cannot, Madame, suffer any longer; and I must, even in dying, 
 expose the authors of my death ; or living, if God shall grant me 
 still some respite, endeavor, under your protection, to destroy, at 
 any price, the cruelties, calumnies, and treacherous designs of my 
 enemies, and obtain for myself a little repose during the time 1 
 may have to live. In order, therefore, to settle the pretended 
 controversies between you and me, enlighten yourself, if you 
 please, upon all that has been told you of my conduct with re- 
 gard to you. Re-read the depositions of the foreigners taken in 
 Ireland. I Let those of the executed Jesuits 2 be shown to you. 
 Give free liberty to any one who will undertake to accuse me, 
 and permit me also to make my defense. If there be found any ill 
 in me, let me suffer for it. I can do so more patiently when I 
 know the reason, — but if good be discovered, mistake me no 
 longer, nor suffer me any more to be so ill repaid. You have so 
 great a responsibility to God and man. 
 
 " The vilest criminals in your prisons, born under obedience to 
 you, are permitted to justify themselves, and to know both the 
 accusers and their charges. Why should the same order not be 
 taken with me, a sovereign queen, your nearest relative, and law- 
 ful heiress. I fancy that this last quality has been the principal 
 point of my enemies, and the cause of their calumnies, that by 
 causing disunion between us, they might slip their own unjust 
 pretensions in between us. But, alas, they have little right and 
 less need to torture me any more on that account, for I protest, 
 on my honor, that I now look forward to no other kingdom than 
 that of my God, which I see prepared for me, as my best recom- 
 pense for all my past afflictions and adversities. It will be your 
 duty conscientiously to see my child put in possession of his 
 rights after my death ; and, meantime, to restrain the constant 
 intrigues and secret means taken by our enemies in this realm to 
 his prejudice and to advance their own pretensions, while, at the 
 
 1 During the troubles with O'Neal of Desmond. 
 Campian, Sherwin, and Briant, executed for high treason for preaching 
 the Catholic Faith.' Lingard, vi. 168. 
 
 4 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 331 
 
 same time, they are laboring with our traitors in Scotland to 
 etfect in every way his ruin. I ask no better verification of 
 this than the charge given to your last envoys and deputies to 
 Scotland, and the seditious practices of those envoys, of which I 
 am willing to believe you ignorant, but to which they were dili- 
 gently incited by the earl, my good neighbor, at York.^ 
 
 " Apropos, Madame, by what right is it maintained that I, his 
 mother, am interdicted not only from aiding my child in so ur- 
 gent a necessity as this, but even from having information about 
 his condition ? Who can bring more carefulness, sense of duty, 
 and sincerity to this than I ? Whom can it touch more nearly ? 
 
 " At least, if, in sending to provide for his safety, as the Earl of 
 Shrewsbury lately told me you have done, if it had pleased you 
 to receive my advice therein, how much greater (it seems to me) 
 a gratification and obligation on my part would have accrued to 
 you. But consider what you left me to think, when forget- 
 ting so suddenly the pretended offenses of my son, and when I 
 begged that we might send together, you dispatched a messenger 
 to the place of his imprisonment, not only without informing me, 
 but while depriving me of all liberty so that I could not by any 
 means get news of it. Ah, had they who moved you to so prompt 
 a visitation to my son, really desired his preservation and the 
 peace of the country, they had not been so careful to conceal it 
 from me, as a thing in which I would not concur with you, and 
 thus caused you to lose the pleasure which you would have re- 
 ceived by so doing. To speak more plainly to you, I beseech you 
 to make no more use of such means and persons, for although I 
 hold Mr. Carey 2 too mindful of the blood from which he is sprung 
 to engage his honor in any bad action, yet he had an assistant, a 
 sworn partisan of the Earl of Huntington, by whose evil offices 
 so base an action only could succeed by a like effect. It will 
 suffice me if you will but prevent all damage to my son from 
 this country, which is all that I have ever hitherto asked of you, 
 even when an army was sent to the frontier to hinder justice 
 from being done to the detestable Morton ; and also that none 
 of your subjects shall meddle directly nor indirectly with the 
 affairs of Scotland, unless I, who have a right to such knowledge, 
 
 1 Earl of Huntington, who had some claim to the English throne. 
 
 2 Son of Lord Hunsdon, who, on the mother's side, was cousin-german 
 to Elizabeth. 
 
332 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 know of it ; or without the assistance of some one on the part of 
 the most Christian king, my good brother, who, as our principal 
 ally, should participate in all this matter, however little credit 
 he may have Avith the traitors who now detain my son. 
 
 " Meantime, I declare to you frankly, that I consider this last 
 conspiracy i and innovation as a pure treason against the life of my 
 son, his well-being, and that of the kingdom ; and that so long as 
 he remains in the condition in which I hear he is, I shall not be- 
 lieve that any word, writing, or other act of his or that may pass 
 under his name, proceeds from his own free will, but solely from 
 the conspirators themselves, who risk his life in using him as a 
 mask. 
 
 " Now, Madame, with all this liberty of speech, which I foresee 
 may displease you in some points, although the very truth itself, 
 yet I am persuaded you will find it still more singular that I now 
 again importune you with a request, which is of the greatest im- 
 portance, yet which you can most easily grant and effect. It is 
 that, while patiently accommodating myself so long to the rigor- 
 ous course of this captivity ; while conducting myself in all 
 things with perfect sincerity, even in the least thing, which in- 
 terest you but little, I have yet been unable to assure myself of 
 your good disposition, nor yet give you proof of my entire affec- 
 • tion. Therefore, all hope of anything better for the short time 
 I have to live being lost, I implore you, yet, in honor of the bitter 
 Passion of our Saviour and Redeemer Jesus Christ, I implore 
 you, let me leave this kingdom for some place of rest ; to seek 
 some solace for this poor body so worn with perpetual sorrows, 
 and, with freedom of conscience, to prepare my soul for God who 
 is calling it day by day ! 
 
 " Believe me, Madame (and the physicians you sent me last sum- 
 mer may also have judged of it), believe me, I cannot last long, 
 so that you need retain no jealousy nor distrust of me. Yet, 
 nevertheless, exact what assurances and just and reasonable con- 
 ditions may seem good in your sight. The greater strength is 
 always on your side to make me observe them, even if anything 
 could make me desire to violate them. You have had sufficient 
 experience and observation enough of my simple promises, and 
 sometimes to my prejudice, as I showed you two years ago. Re- 
 member, if you please, what then I wrote you, that ' by no means, 
 i The Raid of liuthven, or Gowrie Conspiracy. 
 
APPENDIX. 338 
 
 save gentleness, could you bind my heart to yours, even though 
 you confined my poor languishing body forever within stone 
 walls, for that those of ray rank and nature could be cajoled nor 
 forced by any severity whatever.' 
 
 " Your prison, without any right or just cause, has already de- 
 stroyed my body, the last of which you will soon see if my cap- 
 tivity endure much longer, and my enemies will have but short 
 time to satisfy their hatred of me. There remains to me only my 
 soul, which is beyond your power to make captive. Give to it then 
 the liberty to seek a little more freely its salvation, which now it 
 longs for more than any earthly grandeur. It cannot, I think, 
 satisfy you, or be to your honor or advantage, if my enemies 
 crush my life beneath their feet, until I lie suffocated before you ; 
 while on the other hand, if you release me, in this extremity 
 (although too late), you will greatly oblige me and mine, espe- 
 cially my poor child, whom by so doing you will perhaps bind to 
 yourself. I will never cease to importune you with this request 
 until it be granted, and therefore I beg you to let me know what 
 you intend, having, to please you, waited without complaint for 
 these two years past, ere I renewed the entreaties to which the 
 wretched condition of my health compels me more than you can 
 imagine. Meantime, provide, if you please, for the amelioration 
 of my treatment here, since it is beyond my power to suffer longer ; 
 and do not leave it to the discretion of any other than yourself, 
 from whom alone, as I wrote you lately, I wish to receive all the 
 good and evil which henceforward I am to have in your country. 
 Do me the favor to write your intentions either to me or to the 
 French Ambassador for me, for as to being tied up to what the 
 Earl of Shrewsbury or others may write in your name, I have 
 had too much experience to put my trust in that, their lightest 
 fancy being sufficient warrant for the change of everything about 
 me daily. 
 
 " Besides, when I lately wrote to members of your council, you 
 gave me to understand that I was not to address myself to them 
 but to you only, and it is not reasonable to extend their authority 
 only to do me evil, as in this last restriction of theirs, by which, 
 contrary to your desire, I have most shamefully been dealt with. 
 This gives me every reason to believe that some of my enemies 
 in your counsel have expressly hindered other members thereof 
 from hearing my just complaints, and who either knew not the 
 
334 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 persistent endeavors of their companions against my life, or had 
 they known them, would have opposed them for your honor's 
 sake and their duty to you. 
 
 " Finally, I particularly request two things of you : first, that, 
 near as I am to my departure from this world, I may have near 
 me some honorable churchman, who will point out to me daily 
 the way I have to walk, and instruct me to do so according to 
 the rules of my religion, in which I am firmly resolved to live 
 and die. It is a last duty which should not be refused to the 
 most wretched and miserable being. It is a liberty which you 
 extend to every foreign ambassador, and which all Catholic kings 
 extend to yours. And have I ever forced any of my subjects to 
 do anything contrary to their religion, even when I had power 
 and authority so to do ? And now in this extremity you cannot 
 act justly and deprive me of this freedom. What advantage 
 could you gain in refusing it? I trust that God will pardon me, 
 if thus oppressed by you, I render Him the duty I owe only, as 
 is permitted me, in my heart. But you will set a very bad ex- 
 ample to the other princes of Christendom, to use towards their 
 subjects and relatives the same rigor that you exhibit toward 
 me, a sovereign queen, and your nearest kinswoman, in despite 
 of my enemies, as I am and will be so long as I live. 
 
 " I will not importune you now about the augmentation of my 
 household, of which I shall have no great need during the time I 
 have to live. I only ask of you two chamher-women to take care of 
 me in my illness ; protesting before God that they would be ex- 
 tremely necessary were I even a poor creature of the simple 
 people. Grant them to me for the honor of God, and show that 
 my enemies have not credit enough with you to exercise their 
 vengeance and cruelty in a matter of so little consequence, in so 
 simple an office of humanity. , 
 
 " I come now to the accusation of the said Shrewsbury (if accuse 
 me he can), namely, that against my promise given to Beale and 
 without your knowledge, I have negotiated with my son about 
 yielding him the title to the crown of Scotland, after having prom- 
 ised to do nothing without your advice, and by one of my sub- 
 jects, who, in their common voyage should be directed by one of 
 yours. These I believe are the precise terms of the said earl. I 
 "would tell you, Madame, that Beale never received any simple and 
 absolute promise from me ; but several conditional propositions, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 835 
 
 by which I could not in any way be bound save in the fulfillment 
 of the conditions upon which they were based by me; with which 
 conditions he was so little satisfied, that I have never even had 
 any reply to them, nor in your heart even heard them so much 
 as mentioned since ; and, with regard to that, I remember per- 
 fectly well, that the Earl of Shrewsbury, last Easter, desiring to 
 draw from me some new confirmation of what I had said to Beale, 
 I explained clearly to him, that it was only in case that the said 
 conditions were accorded to me, that my words could take effect. 
 Both are still living to testify to this before you if they will to 
 speak the truth. Since that, seeing that no answer was made to 
 me, but that, on the contrary, by delays and negligence, my ene- 
 mies continued more licentiously than ever their intrigues, ar- 
 ranged since Beale's visit to me, to thwart my just intentions in 
 Scotland, as the effect has thoroughly shown, and have thus 
 opened a door for the ruin of my son and myself, I took your 
 silence for refusal and discharged myself by letters express to 
 you and your council of all that I had treated with Beale. 
 
 "I made you a participant of all that the king, my brother-in- 
 law, and the queen my mother-in-law,! had written to me with 
 their own hands about this affair, and asked your advice about, 
 which is still to come, although by it it was my intention to pro- 
 ceed had you given it me in time, or had you permitted me to 
 send to my son, and assisted me in the overtures I made you 
 about establishing a sound friendship and perfect understanding 
 between this realm for the future. But to oblige me at once to 
 follow your advice before I could know what, it was, and in the 
 journey of our people to make mine sut^ect to yours, even in my 
 own country, I was never so simple as even to think of. 
 
 " And now, if you have known the false play which my enemies 
 have used in Scotland, to bring matters to their present con- 
 dition,2 I leave it to your consideration which of us has pro- 
 ceeded most sincerely. God be judge between them and me, and 
 turn from this island his just punishment of their demerits. 
 Look once more, at the intelligence that my traitor subjects in 
 Scotland may have given you. You will find, and I will main- 
 tain it before all Christian princes, that I have never done any- 
 thing to your prejudice, nor against the welfare or peace of this 
 kingdom, of which I am no less desirous than any counselor or 
 
 1 Henry III. and Catherine de Medicis. 2 The Raid of Ruthven. 
 
336 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 subject of yours, having more interest in it than. they. It has 
 been suggested to gratify my son with the title and name of king, 
 to assm-e him of the said title and the rebels' impunity for all their 
 past offenses, and so to put all things in a condition of peace 
 and tranquillity for the future, without any innovation whatever. 
 Was that to deprive my son of the crown ? My enemies, I be- 
 lieve, do not wish him sure of it, and for that reason are quite 
 content that he should possess it by the illegal violence of certain 
 traitors, foes from of old of our race. Was it to seek justice for 
 the past deeds of those traitors, justice which my clemency has 
 always surpassed ? An evil conscience can never be at rest, 
 carrying, as it does, its chief fear and greatest trouble contin- 
 ually with it. Was it a desire to change the repose of the 
 country ? — to procure it by a gentle abolition of all things past, 
 and a general reconciliation of our subjects ? What is it that 
 my said enemies fear from that as much as they make demon- 
 stration of desu-ing it ? What prejudice could be done to you 
 by this ? Mark down and cause to be verified what other thing 
 there is if you please ; I will answer it on my honor. 
 
 " Alas, Madame, will you let yourself be so blinded by the arti- 
 fices of my enemies, who (act) only to establish their unjust pre- 
 tensions to this crown after you, and perhaps against you ? You 
 suffer them, you living and seeing them, to ruin, and cause cruelly 
 to perish, those who are so near to you in heart and blood! 
 What honor or good can result to you by their keeping my 
 child so long separated from me and both of us from you ? 
 
 " Resume those ancient pledges of your natural goodness, draw 
 your own to you by your kindness ; give me this contentment before 
 I die, that, seeing all things settled between us, my soul, freed 
 from the body, may not be compelled to pour out its complaints 
 to God for the wrongs you have suffered to be done to us here 
 below, but rather, that departing from this captivity in peace 
 and concord with you, I may go to Him whom I pray to inspire 
 you to see my very just and more than reasonable complaints and 
 grievances. 
 
 " Sheffield, this 8 November, 
 
 " Your most desolate, nearest cousin, 
 
 " And affectionate sister, 
 
 "Marie R."