BOOK II.

REFORMATION IN FRANCE AND SCOTLAND.

 

CHAPTER I.

THE REFORMATION MOVEMENT IN FRANCE AND SCOTLAND

1540-60.

 

The Reformation movement, and the difficulties which it raised in the politics of every kingdom, gave rise to complications in France and Scotland of which Elizabeth took advantage to secure her own position. So long as a religious war did not break out in England itself, Elizabeth could use the difficulties of neighboring States for her own purposes. So long as England remained united enough to make foreign interference difficult, Elizabeth could balance parties, and help insurgents in the kingdoms of her opponents.

In France the conflict of religious opinions threatened to become serious, much more serious than it had been in Germany. Luther's Reformation was conservative in principle. He wished to alter as little as possible of the belief and practice of the old Church. While aiming at the removal of abuses, he was anxious to preserve the old framework. But in France the Reformers were not so much engaged in removing the abuses of the old state of things as in endeavoring to discover for themselves a new system of life, by which each man might realize more entirely his own relationship to God. Hence the German Reformers did not awake such fierce opposition as did the Protestants in France. In Germany the Reformation only demanded a few modifications of the existing political system; in France it called for an entire change of national life. The principles on which French Protestantism was founded had far deeper root in the mind and character of the individual than had the teaching of Luther and Melanchthon. But here, as in all other things, the deeper principles had to meet with the more bitter antagonism.

Protestantism in France had made considerable progress under Francis I, as the king himself, and his sister Margaret, queen of Navarre, were both in favor of some reforms. But when Francis failed in his political undertakings against Charles V, the intolerant spirit of his people was too strong for him to resist. The theologians of the College of Sorbonne, in the University of Paris, declared themselves violently for the old Church, and the popular opinion of the capital was on their side. Francis I, though allied with the Protestant princes of Germany, and with the Turks abroad, was driven to persecute at home. Under Henry II persecution was still more vigorously carried on, and the Protestant teachers were obliged to flee from France. Some of the chief of them took refuge at Geneva, a city in the dominions of the Duke of Savoy, among a French-speaking people.

Geneva was in a state of political confusion. Its municipality claimed the right to regulate its internal affairs; but its bishop wished to assert his power over it, and the Duke of Savoy also desired t0 bring it int0 subjection. The citizens were opposed to the duke and bishop, and the ideas of the Reformers gave them a ground on which to rest their opposition. Protestantism first came to Geneva through the German-speaking towns of the Swiss confederates, where Luther’s opinions had largely spread. But the French refugees were more in accordance with the spirit of the people, and Geneva became the centre of French Protestantism. Jean Chauvin, better known as John Calvin, a native of Picardy, acquired a great influence over the affairs of the city. Once he was driven away by his enemies, but in 1541 he returned, and from that time Geneva was the centre of his teaching. Calvinism aimed at completely establishing the connection of man with God by means of its doctrine of predestination, according to which the Church consisted solely of those who had been from the beginning predestined to salvation. Starting from this conception, Calvin organized the most rigorous church discipline, and enforced it by means of the government of the city. The greatest moral strictness was exacted, and Geneva, entirely under Calvin’s influence, became a model for all Protestant States.

The example of Geneva naturally told most powerfully upon France. The Protestants increased Calvinism in numbers in spite of the persecutions, and in France the wretched condition of the government under Henry II gave them still greater weight. The king abandoned everything to his favorites, who urged on the persecution as a means of gaining money for themselves. Ecclesiastical offices were given away as rewards for services done to the king, and men who had been pliant courtiers one day were seen officiating as bishops on the next. In this state of things morality was entirely on the side of the Protestants. They grew in numbers, so that in 1558 they were reckoned at 400,000, and each congregation organized itself on the principles which Calvin had laid down at Geneva.

Henry II was alarmed at this spread of Protestantism, and a desire to have his hands more free to attack it is said to have been one of the reasons which made him ready to conclude the peace of Cateau Cambresis with Philip II (April 2, 1559). He published severer edicts against Protestantism, and was suspected of a plan to help the Duke of Savoy to conquer Geneva, when he was accidentally killed at a tournament (July 26, 1559), and a change came over the government of France.

Power of the Guises

Francis II, who succeeded his father, was a boy of the age of sixteen, who, at the very beginning of his reign, gave up all his power to the bitterest of the enemy of the Protestants, Charles Guise, Cardinal of Lorraine. He was one of the six sons of Claude, Duke of Guise, who had been one of the bravest generals of Francis I. These six sons were to play a most important part in French history. All of them were full of vigour and energy, all of them were staunch, we may say fanatical, Catholics, and lost no opportunity of carrying out their convictions. Francis Duke of Guise, the elder brother of the cardinal, had already made himself a name in France by the capture of Calais. James V of Scotland had married the cardinal’s sister, and Mary of Scotland was his niece. It was through her marriage to Francis II that the Cardinal of Lorraine had gained his great influence with the king. He was, moreover, justly popular with the people, a man of commanding presence, great affability, ready eloquence, unblemished moral character, unwearied zeal in discharging the duties of his archbishopric, and a high reputation for sanctity. Now that he had power in his hands, he set three main objects before himself, the suppression of Protestantism, hostility to England, and the establishment of the power of his own family.

Thus it was by the Cardinal’s advice that Francis II and Mary assumed at once the title and arms of England. Mary’s claims were to be asserted against Elizabeth; Protestantism was to be crushed in England as well as in France, and the influence of the Guises was to be supreme in both countries.

Elizabeth knew that Philip would lend no help to carry out such plans as these; but the Pope was likely to combine in their favor all staunch Catholics who were ready to move at the papal command. It was through Scotland that the blow against England would first be struck. Elizabeth’s plan was to avoid it by helping the discontented in France and Scotland alike, so as to employ the cardinal’s energies at home.

We have seen the condition of France. Scotland was equally inflammable on the question of religion, while the power of the crown was much less than in State of France. The Scottish nobles were at the head of powerful clans, and the continual border warfare with England had kept alive their military spirit. The king, on the other hand, had but small revenues, and no army at his command. Hence, to obtain greater power, the Crown had allied itself with the Church, and had been willing to enrich the clergy as a means of diminishing the importance of the nobles. The Scottish Church was wealthy and corrupt, and when Henry VIII of England endeavored to prevail on James V of Scotland to join with him in his reforming plans, the Scottish clergy in alarm bought off the king’s compliance, and stirred him up to the war with England which cost him his life (1542). But the suppression of the monasteries and confiscation of church property in England had wrought a great impression in Scotland, and the clergy felt themselves insecure. Persecution awoke the most bitter passions, and the burning of George Wishart, one of the most popular of the reforming preachers, brought a terrible punishment on the persecutor. Cardinal Beaton, the primate, was murdered in the castle of St Andrews (1546), and for fourteen months the castle was held against the regent. The policy, however of England towards Scotland, and the disastrous battle of Pinkie (1547), compelled the Scots to look to France for help, and so strengthened the Catholic party. French troops were brought in greater numbers to Scotland, and in 1554 the queen-mother, Mary of Lorraine, sister of the Cardinal of Lorraine, was made regent.

The Scots, however, were soon impatient of French influence over them, and disliked the foreigners whom the regent put in power. They felt that though it might be useful for them to play off the French against the English so as to secure their independence, still if they were to be dependent on one or the other, the English were more nearly related to them than the French. On one side was an alliance with France and Catholicism; on the other side an alliance with England and Protestantism.

Here, as in Geneva, national feeling united with religious conviction, and Protestantism became the symbol of antagonism to the French dominion. In 1557 a powerful political party was formed of those who were in favor of ecclesiastical reform. It was a party which came together with different objects. Some were in favor of Protestant doctrines; some hoped for a share of church lands; some wished to raise a party against French influence. But all combined to sign a bond, in accordance with an old Scottish practice, pledging themselves to work together for a common purpose. This bond is known as the First Covenant, and those who signed it agreed to demand that the English Book of Common Prayer be used in the churches, and that Protestant preaching be allowed.

John Knox. 

For a while nothing definite was done; but in 1558 the burning of an old preacher, Walter Mill, at St. Andrews, aroused the Lords of the Congregation, as the signers of the Covenant now called themselves. They presented their demands to the regent, and some time was spent in useless discussion. But the hands of the Reformers were strengthened by Elizabeth’s accession in England, and on May 2, 1559, the leading spirit of the Scottish Reformation, John Knox, returned to Scotland.

Knox had been born near Haddington in the year 1505. He had had a good education, and had taken up Protestantism with the fire and fervor of a severe and stern nature. He was one of those who held the castle of St. Andrews after the murder of Cardinal Beaton, and on its capture had been sent as a prisoner to serve in the French galleys. After nineteen months of suffering, which only intensified the depth and narrowness of his convictions, he succeeded in escaping. For a while he lived in England, under Edward VI, but fled before Mary’s persecution, first to Frankfort, and afterwards to Geneva, where he published a fierce attack upon Mary, called the “Monstrous Regiment of Women”. There he joined Calvin, and learned from him the principles which he afterwards labored to enforce. It was Knox’s influence which turned the Scottish Reformation from following in the steps of the English movement, and impressed upon it the more rigid and severe form which had been thought out by Calvin. Knox came back to Scotland profoundly convinced of the truth of his own convictions, and determined to carry them out at any hazard. He was keen, shrewd, and clear-sighted, a man not likely to put himself or his opinions at the mercy of political contingencies, but determined to use politics for his own purposes. Those who joined him to gain their own ends found that he was more than their match. Utterly fearless, never giving way for an instant, not to be deterred by threats or won over by fair promises, he went upon his own course. He was convinced that to put down popery was his highest duty, and no feelings of sympathy for others, no restraints of decorum, no compassion for human weakness, was allowed to stand in his way. Hard, cold, and austere, yet with a grim humor and a rare power of clear and ready eloquence, he was the terror of those in power and the constant favorite of the people.

Knox's influence was soon felt in the course of affairs. In May 1559 the regent, stirred to action by the Cardinal of Lorraine, summoned the reformed clergy to Stirling. They came, but surrounded by so many followers, that the regent was afraid, and promised that if they would disperse she would proceed no further. They agreed; but scarcely were they gone before Mary caused the preachers to be tried and condemned in their absence. Knox’s anger broke out in a fierce sermon against idolatry, preached at Perth. The people of the town rose and destroyed the images in the churches, and tore down all architectural ornaments which contained sculpture. The example of Perth was followed elsewhere, and the churches of Scotland were soon robbed of their old beauty. From this time we must date the decay of the fine ecclesiastical buildings of Scotland, whose ruins still bear witness to their former splendor. They were not of course destroyed at once; but they were stripped bare and left to molder unheeded. The stern spirit of the Scottish Reformation would not consent to offer the new simple worship, of which men’s consciences approved, in the old buildings which had been profaned by idolatrous rites.

The Lords of the Congregation were now in open rebellion against the regent, and war was on the point of breaking out. It was, however, averted for a time by the mediation of a few moderate men, amongst whom was Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son of the late king, known in later history as the Earl of Murray. Both parties agreed to lay down their arms, and submit their disputes to a meeting of the Estates of the Realm, while the regent promised not to molest the people of Perth, or garrison the town with French soldiers. She kept the letter only of her promise; for she hired native troops with French money, and proceeded to punish the people of Perth. This perfidy gave strength to the Congregation. They again took up arms, seized Edinburgh, summoned a parliament, and deposed the regent (October 1559).

This was a bold step; but without help from England it could not be maintained. As the regent was strong in French troops, the Congregation must ally with England. Elizabeth wished to help them; but her course was by no means clear. To ally with rebels fighting against their lawful sovereign was a bad example for one in Elizabeth’s position to set. She herself had many enemies abroad who were willing enough to interfere in the affairs of England, and many of her subjects recognized her as queen only by virtue of her legal title, which they would be willing enough to set aside. Elizabeth’s ministers were less cautious than herself; but Cecil’s political wisdom was never allowed to act till Elizabeth had provided for her own position in case of failure.

At last, in January 1560, a treaty was made at Berwick between Elizabeth and the Duke of Chatelherault, the second person in the Scottish realm. Elizabeth undertook to aid the Scottish lords in expelling the French, but would only aid them so long as they acknowledged their queen.

And now a strange change had come over Scotland. The Scots were fighting side by side with the English against their old allies the French. Already their religious feelings had overcome their old national animosities; or rather, religion itself had become a powerful element in their national spirit. The war, however, was for a while indecisive. The French troops held the fortress of Leith, and, though blockaded by an English fleet, still managed to repulse the attacks of their assailants. It was doubtful whether Elizabeth would be prevailed upon to send troops enough to secure success for the Scottish lords.

1560. Troubles in France. 

But meanwhile affairs in France took a direction favorable to the Reformers. The Cardinal of Lorraine had offended the nobles by his exclusion of them from State affairs, and by his endeavors to secure all the power for his kinsmen. France was deeply in debt, and there were many murmurs against the oppressive taxes which were levied solely to further the family interests of the Guises in securing their hold on Scotland. To these grievances was added the disaffection of the Protestants. The combined result of all these causes of discontent was a plan to seize the young king at Amboise, deprive the Guises of their power, and entrust the management of affairs to the next princes of the blood, the Prince of Condé and the King of Navarre. The king, it was urged, was only sixteen, and ought to be delivered from evil counselors. The plan was badly carried out, and entirely failed. The hastily gathered troops who hurried to Amboise were easily repelled (March, 1560). They were called Huguenots, meaning apparently a crowd hastily gathering. From this time the name passed on to the French Protestants in general.

But though this attempt failed, it showed the cardinal how great were the dangers he had to face. The French troops were needed at home, and could no longer be spared for Scotland. The withdrawal of the French made peace necessary in Scotland, and by the treaty of Edinburgh (July 1560), it was provided that henceforth no foreigners should be employed in Scotland without the consent of the estates of the realm. Elizabeth’s policy was rewarded by a condition that Mary and Francis II should acknowledge her queen of England, lay aside their own pretensions, and no longer wear the British arms. Before the treaty was signed the queen-regent died (June 20), and with her the power of France and the Guises in Scotland was gone for the present.

The Congregation was now triumphant, and the work of Reformation was quickly carried on. A meeting of the Estates approved of the Geneva Confession of Faith, abjured the authority of the Pope, and forbade the administration, or presence at the administration of the mass, on pain of death for the third offence (August 25,1560).

Meanwhile the Guises were powerless to prevent this. In France the Huguenots demanded toleration, and their demand had been supported by Admiral Coligny. Cardinal Guise was preparing for more vigorous measures, when his plans were cut short by the death of the young king, at the age of seventeen (December 4, 1560). He was succeeded by his brother, Charles IX, a boy of ten, about whose minority there could be no doubt. The queen-mother, Catherine de' Medici, was recognized as regent, and the princes of the blood were called back again to the council. France was divided by factions, each striving for power. Catherine was a Florentine, who had been ill-treated by her husband and neglected by her son, who hated the Guises, and would shrink from nothing which would help her to get power into her own hands. Now that she had obtained a position in the State it seemed as though she were determined to avenge her former seclusion, and satisfy her pent-up greed for power. Next to her was Antony, king of Navarre, an honest, well-meaning, genial man, who strongly favored Protestantism. Against both of these were the Guises, with a strong party of zealous Catholics, wishing for an opportunity to carry out their plans.

France was on the eve of the outbreak of a war in which the passions of parties and factions were strangely mingled with religious feelings. England and Scotland had nothing more to fear from that side for some time to come. The plans of the Guises were no longer to be carried on in Scotland and England by armed interference, but by the political craft and cunning of their niece, Mary of Scotland, who had been trained under their influence.

 

 

CHAPTER II.

MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS.

 

Mary was left a widow at the age of eighteen; but she had gained a political experience far beyond her years. Her French education had almost done away all traces of her Scottish birth. She had received to the full the lessons of graceful refinement for which the French court since the times of Francis I had become famous, and amongst its beautiful and brilliant ladies she gained a reputation as one of the most beautiful and most accomplished. In religion and politics she was a Catholic, attached to the schemes of her uncles the Guises. In the atmosphere of intrigue in which she had moved, she had learned the arts of dissimulation. She knew how to throw over her deep-laid plans a veil of charming artlessness. She knew how to use for her own purposes her great natural gifts, and to employ her personal charms as a means of working out her political plans. Never has there been a sovereign whose public and private life have been so entirely mixed together. Political plans seem to have had no attraction for her unless they had a dash of personal feeling and personal adventure. The enjoyments of private life gave her no pleasure unless she were working through them upon unconscious agents towards the furtherance of her great ends.

At first her character was unknown in England, and it was of the greatest importance to Elizabeth to know how far she might look on Mary as a friend. Her ministers in Paris urged upon Mary the signature of the treaty of Edinburgh, acknowledging Elizabeth as queen of England. Mary refused to sign this, and her address in giving excuses for her refusal first convinced Elizabeth of the power of the enemy with whom she had to do. Till the treaty was signed, Elizabeth refused a passage through England on her return to Scotland. Mary showed her bravery by sailing from Calais to Leith, though the Channel was full of English cruisers. She landed safely in Scotland in the middle of August 1561.

The Scots received her with enthusiasm; for their chivalrous feelings were awakened by the sight of their young queen, as she stood before them in her beauty and grace. To Mary, accustomed to the splendid pageantry of the French court, the attempts of the Scots to welcome her seemed rough and rude. She had left behind her all the graces of the French court, and had come amongst a rugged and proud people, to whom subserviency was unknown, and who were heedless of decorum. The common people thronged about her with easy familiarity as she went to Edinburgh; the nobles were rude and boisterous, and cared little how they showed their respect; the queen had no royal army to meet her, no bodyguard nor band of courtiers.

Nothing shows more forcibly the great strength of mind and firmness of resolution which Mary possessed than does the way in which she comprehended her position and resolutely adapted herself to it. Though surrounded with difficulties, a young queen come to govern, without any real power, a people almost strangers to her, alone amongst men with whom she had no sympathies, a Catholic amongst a Protestant people—still she bravely set her face to do the work on which she had determined.

Full of ambition, she had many chances before her. If the Catholics prevailed in France, she might rely on help from that country. If there were any movement of Catholics in England, it must be in her name. If anything were to befall Elizabeth, she was the next heir to the English throne. The future was full of possibilities. Meanwhile she must win the goodwill of the Scots,—perhaps she might even succeed in winning them back to Catholicism; anyhow she must have Scotland at her control as a safe starting-point for her further plans.

1561.Elizabeth and Mary.

Elizabeth could not penetrate Mary’s designs; she could only suspect them, and Mary’s refusal to ratify the treaty of Edinburgh confirmed her in her suspicions. She felt herself checked on every side by Mary, whose position in Scotland was undisputed, whose relations to claims to England were maintained by many, and whose right of succession was admitted by almost all. Elizabeth would most probably have wished for a peaceable alliance with Mary, whose right to the succession would then have been recognized. But she could not admit the right of succession until the claim to present possession was laid aside. Mary on her part would not give up an existing claim, to gain a doubtful benefit in the future. Meanwhile Elizabeth could neither admit nor reject Mary’s right of succession without injuring herself. She could not marry without putting herself at a disadvantage as compared with Mary. If she married a Protestant, the Catholics, being deprived of the hope of a Catholic successor, would be drawn closer to Mary. If she married a Catholic, it would be distasteful to the Protestants, and she would, by such a marriage, sacrifice much of the independence not only of her personal but of her political position. There is no doubt that she wished to marry Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, the younger son of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, who had played so great a part in the events of Edward VI’s reign. But she felt that she could not marry a subject without lowering her position in Europe; it would, in fact, be preferring her own gratification to the nation’s good. As she could not marry to her liking, she used her marriage projects as a means for diplomatic shuffling.

So, for a few years, history seems almost to be concerned with the personal contest of these two queens; for they summed up in their own persons the opposite tendencies of the time. They were opposed in eager rivalry, each ready to take advantage of the other’s mistakes. Both of them were highly gifted women; both were ambitious and with great plans for the future. Mary was more graceful, more winning, with greater subtlety and quickness. Elizabeth was more imperious, more cautious, with greater foresight and prudence. Both of them were utterly unscrupulous and deceitful, ready to use any instrument in their way, and careless of everything but the success of their plans. But their plans had this difference : Elizabeth was identified in her interests with the nation over which she ruled, and though she might at times be capricious, yet in the end her sense of duty towards her people prevailed over her purely personal desires. She lied, and plotted, and quibbled; but it was to gain, at the least possible cost to her people, some object which was for her people’s good. Mary, on the other hand, had no sympathy with the Scottish character; her ends were purely selfish, and her plans were simply laid for the increase of her own greatness. Hence it was that she failed. In the crisis of her fortunes her sensual nature was too strong for her political cunning; the desire for gratification at the moment overcame the desire for future success; she lived for herself alone, and sacrificed her future to her present.

At first Mary’s government was one of wise moderation, under the guidance of her half-brother, Lord James Stewart, who was created Earl of Murray. The queen succeeded in gaining toleration for her own Catholic worship, and the moderate party gradually increased. One great reason of this was that the new clergy were discontented at not receiving the lands of the old Church. One-third of these lands went to the Crown for the payment of the new clergy; but the other two-thirds were left in the hands of the laymen who had managed during the disturbances to get possession of them.

Mary was not content with mere moderation. When the plans of the Earl of Huntley, who still headed the Catholics in the north of Scotland, were suspected by the government, Mary accompanied the Earl of Murray on an expedition against him (1562). She rode gaily on horseback, and enjoyed to the full the excitement of a martial undertaking. Huntley was killed; the power of his clan, that of the Gordons, was broken, and Catholicism was driven out of the north. Mary fell that her time was not yet come, and meanwhile she would not risk her future success by maintaining her principles in an untimely way.

Beginning of the war of religion in France.

The reason for this dissimulation was, no doubt, the unfavorable turn which affairs had taken in France. The Protestants had used the dissensions between the queen-mother and the Guises as a means of bettering their own position. At a meeting of the Estates, held at St. Germain on January 5, 1562, it was agreed that a legal position should be granted to the Protestants; their preaching was allowed within certain limits, and all penalties against them were suspended.

But though this might be a politic measure, it awoke most bitter feelings in the minds of the fanatical Catholics, at whose head stood Francis, Duke of Guise. Toleration was impossible when men’s passions were so violent. Two hostile bodies could not live peaceably in the same land. The hatred against the Protestants blazed forth in the massacre by Guise’s followers of a Huguenot congregation at Vassy, who had assembled under the protection of the recent edict. The massacre was not deliberate, but the angry soldiers rushed upon the defenceless crowd, and Guise approved of the deed (March 1, 1562). When Guise arrived in Paris he was received with enthusiasm by the people of the city. His friends gathered round him, and he was soon more popular than the king himself.

The Catholic feeling was stronger in France than Catherine had supposed. She was a politician, and cared nothing about religion in itself. She had tried moderation, but the Catholic party showed itself stronger and more zealous. For the present she lent it the king's name.

The object of the Catholic confederates was to revoke gradually the edict of toleration, beginning first with the chief towns. They succeeded in winning over to their side Antony, king of Navarre, by promises of the restoration of his kingdom, which, since 1512, had been in the hands of Spain. But the other head of the Huguenot party, Antony’s brother Louis, Prince of Condé, remained true to his principles. Though a man of easy, careless character, whose life was by no means marked by Huguenot severity, he still believed Protestantism in the bottom of his heart. He did not hesitate to accept the challenge offered. Declaring that the queen-mother and the young king were kept in captivity by the Guises, he took up arms for their liberation.

Condé was not strong enough, however, to wage war by himself. He applied to Elizabeth for help, which she cautiously and sparingly gave, after having demanded as a condition the surrender of Havre-de-Grace into her hands. As before she had defeated the plans of the Guises by an alliance with the rebel nobles of Scotland, so now she would do her utmost to prevent the Guises from helping Mary, by forming an alliance with the rebellious Huguenots of France.

The war centred in Normandy, and at first was unfavorable to the Huguenots. On December 19, 1562, Condé was defeated and taken prisoner at Dreux, and the Duke of Guise undertook the siege of Orleans, the most important town which the Huguenots held. But fanaticism was not solely on the Catholic side. A young Huguenot, Poltrot de Merey, had convinced himself that he would be doing a deed acceptable to God if he could rid the earth of the persecutor of his brethren. He contrived to assassinate the Duke of Guise before Orleans, February 24, 1563. Already had the religious war in France awakened feelings of the bitterest kind, and swept away the ordinary principles which regulate the dealings between man and man. The violence and animosity which have always marked French party quarrels found in these religious contests their most awful expression.

Now that Condé was in prison, and Guise was dead the queen-mother again came forward to urge moderation. She patched up a reconciliation, and the edict of Amboise (March 19, 1563), gave the Protestants the right to worship in all towns where they worshipped at present, except Paris, which was too bigotedly Catholic to tolerate their presence. A truce was agreed to between the two contending parties, though it clearly could not be of long duration. But at first the national spirit prevailed. Catherine was able to unite both factions for the recovery of Havre, which was easily won back from the English, and Elizabeth was compelled to make peace.

For the next few years, however, the party of the Guises gradually grew stronger in France, owing partly to the spread of the order of the Jesuits, and in part to the influence of Philip II of Spain, who dreaded the influence of the French Protestants upon the Netherlands. He was urgent that the queen-mother should join with him in taking common measures for the suppression of heresy. Catherine, who dreaded Spanish interference in France refused to move from her policy of moderation.

In proportion as the Guise influence advanced in France, so did Mary in Scotland begin to act more decidedly. Her marriage was a great means by which the Guises might increase their position in Europe, and many negotiations were entered into on the subject. First, Don Carlos, son of Philip II, was proposed to Mary; but apparently his father was already afraid of the ungovernable temper of the youth, and the match was strongly opposed by Catherine de' Medici who intrigued to prevent it. If Mary had married Don Carlos, the Reformation would have been at once put down in Scotland, which would have again become the quarter from which a Catholic onslaught might be made on England. When this project fell through, Elizabeth urged Mary’s marriage with her own favorite, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, and offered, if this marriage were contracted, to recognize Mary as her successor in England. But Mary knew that by her marriage with a Protestant and an English subject she would have made herself for ever harmless to Elizabeth, and would have destroyed the political influence of her position.

Mary saw no chance of securing her recognition in England, either by agreement with Elizabeth, or by help from Spain. She must take her own measures, and trust to her own skill. She felt that she had made herself personally popular in Scotland by her winning manners, and she knew that the fanatical intolerance of Knox and his followers had created a Catholic reaction amongst all the more moderate men. Mary thought that she could now afford to show her real colors, and therefore on July 29,1565, she married her cousin, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley.

This marriage was a blow to the Protestant party, as Darnley was a Catholic. Murray and his followers regarded it as a menace and at once took up arms, but they were not joined by recruits as they had expected. They were powerless against the levies which the king and queen brought against them, and were driven to take refuge in England. Elizabeth also felt herself threatened by this marriage of Mary; for Darnley's mother was a grand-daughter of Henry VII of England, and by taking him as husband, Mary had strengthened her own claim to the English succession.

Mary’s position was now most formidable to Elizabeth. The Catholic lords were recalled in Scotland, and everywhere throughout Europe Catholicism began plans in to raise its head. It was generally believed that an understanding had been come to between France and Spain for the suppression of Protestantism. So alarmed was Elizabeth at the general aspect of affairs that she received Murray in the presence of the French and Spanish ambassadors, scolded him for rebelling against his lawful sovereign, and extorted from him a statement, which deceived no one, that she had had no share in his rebellion. Mary was now triumphant. If only the fear of the political influence of Protestantism could overcome the national jealousy of France and Spain, Mary hoped that a great Catholic expedition would soon be made against England in her name.

But Mary’s triumph was destined to be brief. Her marriage with Darnley was an unhappy one. He was vain, dissolute, presumptuous, and foolish, and could neither help his wife by his counsels, nor recognize her superiority and obey. His vices outraged her feelings, and his conduct was restrained by no care for decorum. Their quarrel was notorious to all, and those who were discontented with Mary began to gather round Darnley. Parliament was to meet in March 1566, and Murray and the banished lords must then either appear and make good their cause or be outlawed and lose their estates.

1566. Murder of Rizzio

Darnley then agreed to make common cause with the chiefs of the Protestant party. He entered into a bond to do his best to have Murray and the rest recalled. But he too was to have his own wrongs redressed; he entered into another bond to have certain privy persons cut off, wicked and ungodly, not regarding her majesty’s honor, but seeking their own commodity, especially a stranger Italian called Davie. Darnley was seized with jealousy of the queen’s confidential secretary, David Rizzio, who was her instrument for her secret intrigues with foreign powers, and who, through his late increase of importance, had given himself airs which deeply offended the proud Scottish nobles. Darnley thought that if Rizzio’s influence was gone, he himself would be supreme.

So, on the evening of March 9, 1566, as Mary was seated in her chamber at Holyrood, with a few attendants, engaged in talk with Rizzio and Lady Argyle, Darnley entered, and spoke familiarly with the queen. He was soon followed by Lord Ruthven, in full armour, with pale and haggard face, since he had dragged himself from a bed of sickness to do this deed of blood. “It would please your majesty”, he grimly said, “to let yonder man Davie come forth of your presence, for he hath been over long there”. His meaning was at once clear. Rizzio, in terror, seized the queen’s gown. More armed men rushed in. Rizzio was rudely detached, and Mary was thrust into her husband’s arms. The wretched Italian was dragged to the chamber door, stabbed, and his body thrown down stairs. When the attendants of the palace hurried to the spot, they were dismissed by Darnley, who owned the deed as his.

On the next day Murray and the banished lords returned. Mary had heard Rizzio’s fate, and saw at once the meaning of the plot laid against her. But her strong and subtle nature rose with the danger. She listened to Darnley’s excuses and professed to forgive him. She received the banished lords, and pretended to be reconciled to them. But meanwhile she knew that the Earl of Huntley, and James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, both devoted to her cause, had made their escape and were raising troops. By a bold stroke of policy she won over Darnley by her blandishments, managed to dissociate him from his confederates, and prevailed on the feeble plotter to disavow his share in Rizzio’s murder. Then, having thus secured Darnley, she fled with him secretly on the night of March 12, to Dunbar, where Bothwell joined her with the forces which he had raised. On March 28 Mary returned to Edinburgh, and the rebel lords again fled before her. Again she was restored to power, and the birth of a son, afterwards James I of England, on June 19, added still more to the strength of her position. It held out the prospect of an assured line of succession if Mary’s claim to England were recognized. When Elizabeth heard of it, she burst into tears at the contrast between her own solitary condition and her rival’s growth in power. “The Queen of Scots”, she exclaimed,” the mother of a fair son, and I am a barren stock”.

But meanwhile the conduct of Darnley had made him contemptible to everyone. Mary did not disguise her hatred for him, when once he had served her purpose of depriving the rebel lords of any lawful head. His confederates, whom he had weakly deserted, could no longer trust him. He had no claims on the Protestants, and to the Catholics Mary was the natural head. He wandered about the court, despised by all, pouring out his complaints to anyone who would listen to him. Once he talked of fleeing to France, but was prevented, as that would have caused a scandal. There was talk of a divorce between him and the queen; but this, too, would have raised unpleasant questions.

1567. Murder of Darnley.

Mary, on her part, gave all her confidence to Bothwell, who had come to her aid at Dunbar. She gave him the rich abbey lands of Melrose and Haddington, and conferred on him the offices of Lord High Admiral and Warden of the Scottish Borders. By these means he had become the most powerful man in the kingdom, and having won so much, hoped to win still more. Mary was greatly under his influence. After the trials and excitement she had gone through, she seems to have lost some of her force and power of self-reliance. She threw herself upon Bothwell, and her feelings towards him became more and more passionate. Bothwell formed a scheme for marrying the queen, though she already had a husband and he a wife.

Darnley was first got rid of, but in a way so clumsy that it could scarcely hope to escape detection. He had been attacked by smallpox, and was removed to Glasgow, to be tended by his father, Lennox. When he was somewhat recovered, the queen paid him a visit, and arranged that he should come back, not to Holyrood, but to a place close to the city wall, called Kirk-of-Field. On the evening of February 9, 1567, the house was blown up by gunpowder while Mary was at a ball at Holyrood, and Darnley was found dead in the garden.

Mary was now a widow, but it was at once suspected by everyone that Bothwell had been the author of Darnley’s death. Mary affected to believe that it was a plot against herself, which she had fortunately escaped. But the voice of rumor could not be stilled. Placards were found affixed to the door of the Tolbooth, accusing Bothwell of the murder. Darnley’s father, Lennox, wrote to the queen demanding a trial, which was at length granted. But Bothwell overawed the capital with his troops. The trial was looked upon as a prosecution instituted by Lennox, not by the Crown. Lennox was afraid to venture to Edinburgh, as the queen forbade him to bring more than his household servants to attend him, and he was afraid of his life. Bothwell was acquitted because no prosecutor appeared, and no evidence against him was tendered.

Bothwell’s plans now advanced more rapidly. He succeeded in getting a number of the chief lords of Scotland t0 sign a bond that they would promote his marriage with the queen. Then, on April 31, as the queen was returning from Stirling, whither she had gone to visit her child, Bothwell intercepted her and carried her off to his castle of Dunbar. There was still the difficulty in the way of Mary’s marriage to Bothwell, that Bothwell’s wife, sister of the Earl of Huntley, was still alive. A divorce was therefore necessary, and as Bothwell was a Protestant, while Mary was a Catholic, it was determined to make assurance doubly sure. In the Protestant Court of Commissaries Bothwell’s wife sued for and obtained a divorce from her husband on the ground of adultery. The Consistorial Court of the old religion was re-established by royal warrant, and divorce was pronounced on the ground of consanguinity according to the laws of the Roman Church. When the divorces had thus been settled, Bothwell, who meanwhile had been created Duke of Orkney and Shetland, married Mary on May 15, 1567.

By her marriage with Bothwell, whose guilt in regard to Darnley’s murder was almost universally acknowledged, Mary had ruined her own reputation, not only in Scotland, but in Europe generally. Elizabeth had watched her rival sink deeper and deeper, till she had ceased for the time to be dangerous. Mary’s infatuation for Bothwell had destroyed her political wisdom; she had given reins to her own passions and had paid no heed to her great plans. By her marriage with a Protestant she had ceased to be the head of the Catholic party. By her marriage with a man of Bothwell’s character she had roused a deep feeling of disgust throughout Scotland.

The rapid rise and overweening power of Bothwell filled the Scottish lords with alarm. Never before had they known what strength the Crown might gain when allied to a powerful feudal house, and now they saw their independence threatened by this union of Mary and Bothwell. Many of those who had signed the bond to aid Bothwell began to plot against him, and when Mary summoned the feudal levies for an expedition to the Borders she met with no answer to her call. Alarmed, she and Bothwell retired to Borthwick Castle, whither they were soon followed by a force under Lords Morton and Home, who declared they had come to free Mary from the power of Bothwell. As Borthwick Castle could not be held against them Bothwell first made his escape; afterwards Mary joined him, and both took refuge in Dunbar. The lords advanced to Edinburgh, where the Castle was at once surrendered to them. They issued a proclamation, charging Bothwell with having murdered the king, and entrapped Mary into an unhonest marriage. Bothwell raised his forces, and the lords marched out of Edinburgh to meet him. The armies met at Musselburgh; but Bothwell saw that his ranks were thinned by desertions. He declined a battle, and Mary surrendered herself at Carberry, on condition that Bothwell was allowed to escape (June 15, 1567). Bothwell fled to Dunbar, and afterwards to his duchy of Orkney; thence he went to Denmark, where he died in 1577.

Mary was brought back to Edinburgh amidst the execrations of the crowd. Banners representing the king’s murder were waved before her eyes, and the figure of the young prince was represented, calling for vengeance on his father’s murderers. Mary had by her conduct forfeited for ever her great position in Europe. It was hopeless for her, covered with shame and disgrace as she now was, to expect help from France. She had lost all the sympathies of her people, and could never again make herself strong in Scotland. The lords had hoped to detach her from Bothwell, and govern in her name; but when she still clung to her worthless husband, she was removed from Edinburgh and confined in Lochleven Castle.

Three days after this, June 20, a casket belonging, it is said, to Bothwell fell into the hands of the confederate lords. This casket contained letters purporting to be addressed by Mary to Bothwell, which he had kept as a means of securing his influence over her. The letters themselves were full of the most passionate love for Bothwell, and were concerned with schemes for ridding themselves of Darnley. If these letters were genuine they would establish the depth of Mary’s guilt and infamy. But the balance of evidence at present seems to tend to the conclusion that they were forgeries. There were motives enough why such letters should have been forged by those who wanted some convincing proofs of the suspicions which they, perhaps justly, entertained. At all events they were accepted as genuine and were acted upon by the lords at the time. The queen was treated as guilty of murder, and was made to sign an abdication of the crown in favor of her son, and a nomination of her half-brother Murray as regent. (July 24, 1567.)

Henceforth Mary was no longer queen of Scotland. How deep her own guilt may have been is a matter of controversy; for since her death Mary has been a symbol for political and religious ideas, as much almost as she was during her lifetime. But even if we acquit her entirely of the blackest crimes of which she has been accused, she must still be held to have sacrificed strangely the great interests committed to her charge. Mary had wrought her own ruin, and Elizabeth had witnessed with an in­tense feeling of relief the hurried steps in her rival's downward course. England was saved from the danger of a Catholic restoration in Scotland and a great Catholic combination to establish Mary on the English throne. How pressingly near this danger was at the time of Mary’s fall, we shall see if we consider the position of the Spanish power at the time.

 

BOOK III.

SPAIN AND THE NETHERLANDS.