MIRY QUEEN OF SCOTS.* ALTHOUGH Mary, Queen of Scots, has
been dead for nearly three centuries, the narrative of what some writers deem her misfortunes, and other writers her crimes, retains its freshness and interest still. Men continue to range themselves under her banner, or on the side of her opponents, and they do this with an enthusiasm and pre- possession which they are often unable to feel for events of greater importance and of more recent interest. One of the chief virtues of the historian, a virtue without which his learning and literary skill only serve to lead him astray, is a sound and impartial judg- ment. He is a judge who, in the first place sifts evidence, in the second place pronounces sentence ; and for such a work a passionless equanimity of temper, and the power of looking at a question from different standing-points, are of vastly more importance than the faculty of word-painting or of dramatic representation. It is quite possible that a heavy historian who moves over the ground with slow and painful foot- steps, careful to verify every statement, but careless of proportion and of the grace' of composition, may do a greater service to literature than his more accomplished but less accurate rival. In the domain of history there is ample scope for the highest genius and the most splendid imagination ; but it does not follow that the possession of these gifts is essential to the historian. Assuredly they are not so essential as the power of sifting evidence and arranging facts, and as that noble spirit of veracity which compels a man to reject at any cost all idols of the mind.
These remarks are not out of place in the review of a work which is an apology for a queen who has had many defenders and defamers, but few thoroughly judicious historians. Mr. Hosack's carefully elaborated defence is conducted with great forensic ability. He sees all round his subject, knows well what he may bring out strongly into the light and what it is best to keep in the shade, has a keen eye for discovering the weak points in his opponents' armour, and is sometimes alert enough to wound them with their own weapons. From step to step he feels his way with a confidence that looks like strength, and as he marshals his facts, weighs his arguments, and pronounces his conclusions, it is impossible not to feel that you are in the pre- sence of a writer of considerable acquirements, who has spared no toil, and has thrown his best thoughts into the work. The author has done his utmost to vindicate the character of Mary, and if he has not succeeded in an attempt so difficult, and the weight of evidence against the unfortunate Queen remains painfully heavy, the effort here made to lighten it is not without its value.
In his preface, Mr. Hosack observes that the specific charges preferred against the Queen at Westminster have never hitherto been published, but a copy of the articles has been preserved among the Hopetoun manuscripts, and is now for the first time given to the public. For the first time, also, we are enabled to read the journal of the proceedings at Westminster "on the day upon which the silver casket containing the alleged letters of Queen Mary to Bothwell was produced," and the author has also succeeded in bringing many important facts to light which have been neglected by earlier historians.
Mr. Hosack, in order to sustain his argument, gives a narrative of events for twenty-two years. They were years perhaps of more general interest than any other period of Scottish history. It was a turbulent age, an age of licentious passions, outrageous tyranny, extreme bigotry, and gross lawlessnesi, when Scotland was under the sway of ambitious nobles and of an intolerant clergy, when the worst vices were tolerated under the cloak of religion, and
Mary, Queen of &ORS, and Her Accusers; embracing a Narrative of Evans from the Dealk of James V., in 1542, wadi the Death of the Regent Murray in 1570. By John Houck, Barrister-at-Law. Edinburgh and London: W. Blackwood and Sons. 1809.
when fierce Protestants held or practised the Romish dogma that the end justifies the means. The young Queen's path was surrounded by pitfalls from the moment that she entered the country, and it needed no common discretion to avoid falling into them. Mary was not discreet, but she was wiser than many of her counsellors. Assailed by what Mr. Hosack calls, in scarcely too strong language, "the boorish bigotry of Knox," and by others who, like him, deemed it right to destroy Romanism by the aid of the civil power, Mary, although a zealous Roman Catholic, surrounded herself with Protestant advisers. Her faults did not lie in the direction of religious intolerance, and neither principle nor passion would have led her to punish those who differed from her in opinion. In 1561 the Queen landed in Scotland, in 1563 occurred the love episode of Chastelar, the first affair of the heart which casts a doubt upon the morality and the humanity of the Queen. It is difficult to believe that the unhappy poet would have twice secreted himself in Mary's bedroom, if he had not previously received some tokens of her affection ; but whether this were so, or whether, as Mr. Hosack suggests, he had misinterpreted her courtesies and they had unhinged his reason, it was cruel to allow him to lose his life for his folly. Two years after this Mary was married to Darnley, a handsome fool, with wit enough to be wicked and mischievous, but not enough to secure him from contempt. With this union the great troubles of her life began. They were publicly married in July, 1565; in March, 1566, Rizzio was murdered. That Darnley was jealous of Mary's attachment to the Italian secretary there seems little reason to doubt, and this feeling was turned to political account by the con- spirators, whose aim, according to Mr. Hosack, was to make the Queens prisoner, and place Darnley as their puppet on the throne. Rizzio's "only crime," he adds, "was fidelity to his mistress," a doubtful assertion truly, in the face of some of the evidence that has come down to us. Still more doubtful perhaps is the state- ment that Murray was chief of the conspirators, but it is certain that he was a party to the conspiracy, and made no effort to prevent a deed in which, considering what Mr. Burton calls "his steady, careful, decorous walk in life," he might have been unwilling to participate.
And here it may not be amiss to state that we have no sympathy with Mr. Froude's laudation of the Regent. So far from thinking, with that historian, that Murray was stain- less, that his nature had no taint in it, and that his in- tegrity was "supreme and commanding," we think that his whole career is marked by chicanery, deceit, and cold-blooded calculation. If he never committed a great crime, it was because he found suitable agents to commit it for him ; if he cannot be convicted of any overt act of treachery and hypocrisy, is because his craftiness was sufficient to conceal his immorality ; if his conduct was outwardly restrained and decent, it was because his ambition taught him discretion, and enabled him to veil his selfish designs under the garb of patriotism. In his denuncia- tion of Murray, Mr. Hosack is supported by sound historical evidence ; and when he asserts the gross treachery of almost all the chief personages by whom Mary was surrounded, the statement cannot be gainsaid. They were barefaced liars, they were ruthless foes, they were Judas-like friends. Men like Merton, Balfour, or Bothwell shrank from no crime to gain their ends. To garble evidence, to forge docu- ments, to put awkward witnesses out of the way by the poison- cup or dagger,—these were familiar acts to men who frequented the Scottish Court, who were noble by birth and dignified by office. Mr. Hosack shows convincingly how grossly the poor
Queen was sinned against, but he fails to satisfy us that she was free from blame herself. No advocate could have placed the
Darnley tragedy in a better light for Mary, yet, despite the singularly able defence, we can but shrug our shoulders and say, as has been so often said before, that the whole affair bears an ugly look indeed. Of course, if we acknowledge the accuracy of Buchanan, or if we accept as incontestible the evidence afforded by the casket letters, the guilt of the Queen is established beyond all question ; but it is clear that the great scholar and historian did in many instances care less for truth than for the interests of party, and with regard to the letters, we refer those of our readers who wish to think the Queen innocent to Mr. Hosaek's elaborate apology. He shows that the main charges brought against her by her enemies were uncorroborated by living wit- nesses. Paris, the chief witness against the Queen, was not sent to the conference at Westminster, and was dead before his deposition was sent to England. Dalgleish, another important witness, "was also dead before his name was ever mentioned in con- nection with these celebrated documents." According to Bucha- non, Bothwell having sent his servant Dalgleish for the box con- taining the letters which he had left behind him on fleeing from Edinburgh, the treasure was delivered up by Balfour, who gave information to the confederates at the same time, so that the servant was captured and the contents of the box secured.
"Can we believe [says Mr. Hosack] that Balfour, an experienced lawyer, accustomed to deal with evidence of every kind, would have thus risked the loss of documents so precious ? Bothwell's servant, to whom they were entrusted, might have lost them ; he might have destroyed them ; he might have made his escape. In any such case, the confederates would have lost their only evidence against the Queen, their only hope of justifying their rebellion. That a man like Balfour should, without any conceivable object, run such a risk is hardly within the bounds of belief. Another objection to the truth of Buchanan's nar- rative is the absolute silence of the Queen's enemies at the time of the alleged discovery. We have not a scrap of contemporary corre- spondence on the subject. Although Drury continued to transmit to Cecil every piece of political gossip he could collect, he never gives the faintest hint as to the all-important letters. The despatches of Du Croc, who was in Edinburgh at the time, are equally and significantly silent. Still more significant is the examination of Dalgleisb, the alleged bearer of the letters, who was brought before the confederate Privy Council on the 26th of June, five days after they were said to have been recovered. Neither upon that nor upon any other occasion was Dalgleish asked any question, nor did he make any statement as to the letters said to have been found upon him. Nor, as we have already stated, was his name ever mentioned in connection with them until after he was dead. The Privy Council failed to examine a still more important wit- MM. Not a question was put to Sir James Balfour, the alleged finder of the letters, nor, although he acted with the confederates for some time afterwards, did he ever furnish any confirmation of their story. The only witness of its truth, therefore, was the Earl of Morton, who finally produced the letters at Westminster, and who was afterwards himself convicted of the crime with which he charged the Queen. Mr. Laing has suggested an extraordinary reason for the silence of the confederates respecting their discovery. He says, ` They were careful not to exasperate the Queen's friends by divulging the letters.' If the letters were forged, that would, no doubt, have been the result ; but if they were genuine, however they might have exasperated her enemies, they must have seriously discouraged her friends, a point at this time of the utmost consequence to the insurgents. They were, in fact, after the imprisonment of the Queen, in a position of extreme danger. Not only had they in vain sought assistance both from England and from France, but a large number of their fellow-nobles, under the leadership of the Archbishop of St. Andrew's and the Earls of Huntley and Argyll, had assembled at Hamilton to concert measures for the liberation of their sovereign. They even refused to receive a messenger from the con- federates who had been sent to treat with them on the subject. The insurgents, therefore, had before them the immediate prospect of a civil war in which they could count only on the extreme section of the Pro- testant population ; for the great majority of the nobles, Protestant as well as Catholic, was arrayed against them. There was only one way by which they could hope to disarm their opponents and justify their con- duct to foreign states, and that was by furnishing decisive proof of the Queen's guilt. Can we believe that in the perilous position in which they stood, if such evidence had been in their possession, they would have failed to produce it ?"
We cannot follow Mr. Hosack in his painstaking investigation of the charges against the Queen. He is not always just, nor always consistent, but he has produced a work of great interest and power, and has brought out every point in favour of Mary with remark- able lucidity. Despite much which looks like innocency, and although we are compelled in some cases to take the side of the Queen against her antagonists, there still remains the damning fact of the marriage with Bothwell, a glaring blot upon her charac- ter which cannot be wiped out. Mr. Hosack's defence of this "irreparable error" is the weakest as it is the most difficult part of his argument. "It cannot be denied," he says, "that the con- duct of the Queen of Scots at this critical period of her history is open to grave suspicion. It cannot be denied that she resided for upwards of a week at the castle of Dunbar under the same roof with Bothwell, and that in the interval she consented to become his wife." Mr. Hosack believes that there was no attachment to Bothwell on the part of the Queen, that the union was forced upon her, and that as all the most powerful families in Scotland were abetting Bothwell in his criminal enterprise, there was no possi- bility of escape. To this, however, it is enough to reply that both before the marriage and after the murder of Darnley the Queen was in familiar intercourse with Bothwell, that she made no vigorous effort to discover and to punish the murderers, and that, notwithstanding her alleged anger at the forcible seizure of her person, she conferred high dignities upon her captor and then accepted him as her husband. When Craig, after proclaiming the banns at the command of his sovereign, ex- claimed from the pulpit of the High Church, "I take heaven and earth to witness, that I abhor and detest this marriage as odious and slanderous to the world," and when, in the presence of the Privy Council and of Bothwell, he accused the Earl of murder and adultery, he did but express openly the secret convictions of his countrymen, and the belief held ever since by most students of history, that if the Earl were guilty so also was the Queen. Mr. Hosack's pleading, able as it is, will not reverse the judgment. We may observe, in conclusion, that the writer brings several weighty charges against Mr. Froude. He accuses that able historian of "inventing fictions" when facts fail him, of accept- ing worthless evidence, of omitting evidence which militates against his arguments, and of being the most reckless of Mary's adversaries. We shall be curious to see whether Mr. Froude replies to charges thus bluntly preferred against him. He is quite able to defend his reputation for historical veracity, and if he does not think it necessary to do so, his friends or admirers may spare themselves the trouble.
Previous page
