Chapter XVI: Reign of Queen Mary

WHILE the Protestants were still uneasy and somewhat alarmed by the intelligence that France had firmly refused to confirm the Treaty of Edinburgh, or to ratify any part of the proceedings of the last Parliament, the welcome tidings reached Scotland that Francis II. had died on the 6th of December, 1560. As this event broke and limited the sway of that scheming and ambitious house of Guise, the death of the young king was hailed with undisguised satisfaction by the leaders of the Protestants. The work of the Reformation in Scotland proceeded without serious interruption from any quarter; and the nation began to look for the early return of their Queen without misgiving.

A considerable section of the people still professed to adhere to the old religion, and they were headed by the Earl of Huntly. This noble was then almost the supreme ruler in the north and north-west of Scotland; and he put himself forward as the representative of the Roman Catholics. John Lesly, the parson of Oyne, and afterwards bishop of Ross, was deputed in April 1561, to proceed to France and represent the views of the Catholic party to Queen Mary. He suggested that she should land at Aberdeen, where twenty thousand troops would be ready at her command; and with these a blow might be struck against the Protestants. This plan was not followed by the Queen; but it had some connection with events which happened shortly after her return to Scotland.¹

¹ Lesly’s _History Of Scotland_, page 294; Dr. Burton’s
_History of Scotland_, Volume IV., page 166.

The prior of St. Andrews, Lord James Stuart, the Queen’s natural brother, passed through England on his way to France, as the deputy of the Protestant Lords; and was warmly received by the Queen. After many interviews with her brother, concerning the state of Scotland, Mary informed him that she intended to return to the home of her ancestors. She embarked at Calais on the 14th of August, 1561, and landed at Leith on the 19th of the month. Her arrival was announced by the sound of cannon; and all ranks of the people hastened to meet her and to welcome her home. The loyal citizens of Edinburgh endeavoured to enliven her first night at Holyrood by a musical performance, in which fiddles with three strings were the leading instruments. This serenade seems to have grated on the ears of her French attendants; and indeed the whole people and their surroundings must have presented a strange contrast to the luxury, the external polish, and the enchanting pleasures, which had encircled Mary during the palmy days of her life in France. Many of the citizens of the capital, however, were anxious to show their goodwill towards her, and on the 2nd of September they presented to her a cupboard which cost two hundred marks. The expense of the town in connection with the banquet, the triumph, and gift to the Queen on the occasion amounted to four thousand marks.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages 119‒122;
_Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 67‒69; Knox, Volume II.,
pages 269‒270.

The exceeding interest of the events crowded into the history of the succeeding seven years, the tragic, and often dark character which they assumed, and the vital importance of the main issue involved, have induced me to attempt a concise explanation of the causes which controlled the current of events, and ultimately led to the flight of Queen Mary into England. This part of our history has often been ably treated in the narrative form, and with every point of detail, especially in reference to the character of Queen Mary herself; but in nearly all the writings on this period there is rather much of the partisan spirit, and too keen a tendency to rest the issue of the momentous revolutionary movement on points of merely secondary weight and import. The questions as to whether there is evidence that Mary was implicated in the plot to murder her husband, whether this or that noble was concerned in the plot to murder Riccio and Darnley, whether Mary’s marriage with Bothwell was voluntary, or forced by violence; how this King or Queen struggled to outwit and befoul another; or how this statesman and that confounded each other, by framing misrepresentations――such are the questions and matters which mostly fill the literature on the reign of Queen Mary. But without by any means ignoring the relative value of the literature, the chief aim of this chapter will be to reach the underlying ideas, not of the literature itself, but of the Reformation movement.

It is quite unnecessary to dwell on the charming beauty, the varied accomplishments, and the unquestionable talents of Mary Stuart, Queen of France and Scotland. But once for all it must be stated that I am not a hard and fast apologist of Mary throughout her chequered career; although on the other hand, I have been unable to discover that she was so deceitful, immoral, and wicked, as she has often been painted. If she be measured by the standard of morality common amongst her contemporaries of the sixteenth century, she will not suffer by a comparison with the best of them. The cupidity and faithlessness of the royal families and many of their counsellors, who were then trying to sway the destinies of Europe, had reached a height of enormity which would be incredible, if it were not attested by piles of unimpeachable evidence. Everywhere the suffering of the lower classes had became almost unbearable; and this was a time of destruction, of revolution, and of renovation. In these circumstances it is unjust, and historically false to single out Queen Mary because she was unfortunate, as baser and worse than her compeers.

The Scottish nobles had long been accustomed to fight against the Crown; and they had at last laid one of the strongest arms of the throne in the dust. They had abolished the old Church and seized its landed property; and what they had thus taken, they intended to retain, while they eagerly looked for more. Most of them had joined with the Reformers for no higher aim than the enlargement of their estates; and the whole of their subsequent proceedings were quite consistent with the origin of their reforming spirit. John Knox was smarting under the sting of blasted hopes and defeated schemes. He at least acted from honest intention and firm conviction. He believed that he was following out the will of God, and delivering His message to Scotland. His whole heart and soul was in his work, and he struggled with all his energy to enforce what he deemed to be “the eternal truth of God.” Yet like other men, he was intolerant, overbearing, and greedy of power. The party who faithfully adhered to him were naturally suspicious, and dreaded that a reaction might be attempted; and for the protection of their own lives, and the safety of the reformed faith, they were always on the outlook and ready to frustrate the machinations of those who were opposed to it. That the utmost vigilance was necessary for the success of their cause, they were well aware. Their scheme of life was narrow, and many of their ideas extremely crude. But the Reformation on the other hand embraced the elements of a social and religious revolution. It went to the roots of evil, stirred the inmost thoughts of men, and aimed at the elevation of society, from the humble tiller of the ground to the occupant of the throne. Underneath all the rudeness of the reformed preachers, there was the moving, invisible flow of the moral principle――the consciousness of a God before and above all, and the conviction of the justice of their cause. They believed that the decrees of the Almighty were irresistible in their sweep. It was chiefly in the “eternal decree” that the intensity of Calvinism rested; and this absolute dogma was the secret of the influence which Calvin so long wielded over the minds of men. So long as there was no question touching the power of the mind to discover this decree, its influence had full swing, and remained unimpaired.

The nobles and barons had gathered from all quarters to welcome Queen Mary; but the trying circumstances in which she was placed, soon became apparent. Though her personal talent for government was conspicuous, she never had a fair chance as a Queen in Scotland. On Sunday, four days after her arrival, when the preparations began to be made for the celebration of mass in the royal chapel, the Reformers were greatly offended. The more zealous of them openly asked whether this idol should be again suffered, even in the Queen’s chapel. When it appeared that there would be an attack upon the priest, the Queen’s brother, the Lord James, guarded the chapel door during the service. After it was over, John and Robert Stuart, other two natural brothers of the Queen, took the priest between them and conducted him safely to his chamber.¹

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 270‒271.

The following day a proclamation was issued, announcing that the Queen was to make no alteration in the form of religion which she had found existing when she returned to her kingdom, without the consent of parliament. The people were enjoined to make no attempts either publicly or privately to change the form of religion; but at the same time the proclamation commanded that no one should molest any of the Queen’s French followers or servants, for any cause whatever, under the penalty of death.¹ On the following Sunday Knox inveighed against idolatry, and declared what terrible plagues God had sent upon the nations who indulged in this false worship. He had a special hatred at the service of the mass, and dreaded the effects of allowing the Queen to engage in the exercise of the Roman Catholic worship. In the circumstances there was reasonable ground for his apprehension.²

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 266‒267;
1877.

² Knox, Volume II., pages 296‒277, Anderson’s _Collections_.

Queen Mary was naturally extremely annoyed at the outspoken proceedings of the preachers, and resolved to try the effect of her wit upon Knox himself. The Reformer had a long dialogue with the Queen which is reported in his history. The Queen tackled him on a variety of points, chiefly political; and even according to Knox’s report, clearly held her own in the argument, showing at every turn a quickness of perception and a dialectic tact which brought out the unyielding and intolerant features of Knox’s character.¹

¹ Knox, Volume II., 277‒286.

Mary’s government, notwithstanding the alarm of the Protestants, was for some years conducted with unusual success. Her brother, Lord James, was placed at the head of affairs; and Maitland of Lethington, a man of ability, was Secretary of State, and played an active part in the Government. In September Mary made a progress to Linlithgow, Stirling, Perth, Dundee, and St. Andrews, and was everywhere well received by the citizens. She returned to Edinburgh in the end of September; but Knox complained that she had polluted the places she had visited with idolatry. Means were taken to punish the lawless Borderers and to restore order amongst them, but with little success.¹

¹ _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 69; Volume II., page 287;
_Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 163‒165,
167, 168, 184.

As yet the Reformed Church was merely on sufferance; the head of the State was a confirmed Roman Catholic; and there was no provision made for the Protestant preachers. Knox and other ardent reformers had been much mistaken when they supposed that the Lords of the Congregation who had so actively assisted in pulling down the Roman hierarchy, would also be ready to transfer its property to the new Church. The preachers had rather foolishly imagined that the nobles, who at first had stuck so close to the good cause, were really actuated by pure religious motives and honest convictions. When the practical proposals for the disposal of the lands and the wealth of the old establishment came under their consideration their eyes were opened. The reformed clergy desired the Parliament and Queen to ratify the First Book of Discipline, but the reforming lords now asked in jeering tones――“How many of those who subscribed that book would be subject to it?” Maitland of Lethington said――“Many subscribed it in _fide parentum_, as the bairns are baptized.” In the face of the remonstrances of Knox himself, another of the lords said――“Stand content, that book will not be obtained.” Then said Knox, “Let God require the lack which this poor commonwealth shall sustain of the things therein contained from the hands of such as stop the same.”¹

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 295‒298.

By an Act of the Privy Council, 22nd of December, 1561, it was proposed to appropriate a third of the revenue of all the benefices in the kingdom to the Crown. The Catholic bishops and clergy who were still in possession, were to retain the rents and proceeds of their benefices, except the third which was to be applied to the purposes of the Queen and the government of the country, and to making a reasonable provision for the Protestant ministry. The rentals of all the benefices in the kingdom were ordered to be given in at a specified time, that the amount of the thirds might be ascertained and the arrangements carried out. A Royal Commission was appointed with power to carry the Act into effect, but those who were in possession of the benefices seem to have paid little or no heed to it. On the 12th of February, 1562, the Council complained, “That the Queen’s Majesty and the Council, and others appointed by her for receiving the said rentals, have continually since the said 24th of January awaited upon the receiving thereof; yet only a very small number of them have produced their rentals, contemning thereby not only Her Grace’s ordinance and proclamation, but also herself and her authority, like as if they were princes and not subjects, expressly against reason, equity, and justice.” Her Majesty and the Council therefore resolved to appoint factors to intromit, gather, uplift, and receive the rentals in all cases where they had not been given in according to the ordinance.¹ The reformed clergy were extremely displeased with this arrangement, and Knox expressed his opinion on its defects as usual with great freedom: “Well, if the end of this order pretended to be taken for the sustentation of the ministers be happy, my judgment faileth me; for I am assured that the Spirit of God is not the author of it; for, first, I see two parts freely given to the devil, and the third part must be divided between God and the devil. Well, be witness to me, that this day I say it, or it be long, the devil shall have three parts of the third; and judge you then what God’s portion shall be.” Many were offended at this language, and some were not ashamed to affirm that, “After the ministers were sustained the Queen will not get at the end of the year as much as to buy her a pair of new shoes.”² Knox was pretty near the truth, for by grants of lands, long leases, alienations, pensions, actual seizure by force, and other means, the nobles and gentry swallowed up the greater part of the property and revenue of the Roman Church.³

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 192‒194,
196, 199, 201‒203, 204‒206. Among the public records there
are several volumes of accounts of the collectors of the
thirds of benefices, beginning in 1562.

² Knox, Volume II., page 310.

³ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 287‒288,
412‒413, 477‒479, 487‒488, 573‒575, _et seq._

The stipends granted to the reformed ministers were not large. The sum fixed for the ordinary ministers was to range from one hundred marks to three hundred. But from various causes even this small sum was very irregularly paid, and the ministers were constantly complaining in the General Assembly. Some persons had the audacity to tell them that many of the barons had not so much to spend as they had; but this comparison was deemed unfair and inapt, as a baron might augment his rent by engaging in other business, while a minister had no other source of income but his stipend, and required books and quietness in order to study and work to edify the Church of Christ. When the clergy put these reasons before the authorities and complained of their poverty, they were told that the Queen could not spare greater sums. The preachers, however, often sounded into their ears――“O, happy servants of the devil, and miserable servants of Jesus Christ, if after this life there was not a hell and a heaven! For to the servants of the devil, to your dumb dogs, and horned bishops, to one of these idle bellies, ten thousand a-year was not enough; but to the servants of Christ who laboriously preach the Gospel, a thousand pounds; how can that be sustained?” Lethington, the Queen’s secretary of state, said that the ministers were paid so much every year by the Queen, and he asked, “Was there ever a minister that gave thanks to God for her Majesty’s liberality towards them.” Then “one smiled and answered, Assuredly, I think that such as receive anything gratis of the Queen, are unthankful if they acknowledge it not, both in heart and speech; but whether the ministers be of that rank or not I greatly doubt. Gratis, I am assured, they receive nothing, and whether they receive anything at all from the Queen wise men may dispute. I am assured that neither the third nor two parts ever appertained to her predecessors within the realm these thousand years bypast; neither has the Queen a better title to that which she usurps, be it given to others, or taken to herself, than such as crucified Christ Jesus had to divide his garments among them. And if the truth may be spoken, she has not so good a title as they had; for such spoil used to be the reward of such men, and in that point these soldiers were more gentle than the Queen and her flatterers, for they parted not the garments of our Master till that he himself was hung upon the cross; but she and her flatterers part the spoil while poor Christ is yet preached amongst you.... Let the Catholics, who have the two parts, some that have their thirds free, and some that have gotten abbacies and feu lands, thank the Queen, and sing _Placebo Dominæ_. The poor preachers will not yet flatter for feeding their belly.”¹

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 311‒313; _Book of the Universal
Kirk_, pages 16, 17, 23, 30, 47, 48.

But dissatisfied as the Protestant ministers were with Mary, her proceedings were probably much more displeasing to the magnate of the north, the Earl of Huntly. The Earldom of Moray was detached from Huntly’s possessions and conferred on Lord James, who was henceforth known as the Earl of Moray. Huntly had not changed his religion, but throughout the religious struggle his chief aim had apparently been to retain his vast territories and his influence in the north. Various incidents and circumstances indicated that Moray had resolved to crush him. The house of Huntly had long ruled supreme over the smaller chiefs in the northern Highlands, and had sometimes committed acts of oppression and injustice amongst them. In August, 1562, the Queen and Moray moved northwards; Huntly suspected that mischief was brewing against him, and sent his wife to Aberdeen to meet the royal party and to ascertain their purpose. The Countess invited the Queen to ♦Strathbogie Castle, but Mary declined, and proceeded by Rothiemay, and onward to Inverness. The gates of the Castle of Inverness were closed against the Queen, but it was besieged, and taken, and the garrison hanged. Some of the clans, including the Clan Chattan, the Camerons, and the Monros who had been under Huntly, now that they had an opportunity, deserted his standard and joined the Queen. When the royal party were returning to Aberdeen, Huntly with a body of his retainers followed them, marching well up along the heights to the Hill of Fare, in Midmar, where the battle of Corrichie was fought on the 28th of October, 1562. The royal troops under Moray were victorious, and the Earl of Huntly himself was slain, his followers scattered, and two of his sons captured. Two days after the battle, five gentlemen of the Gordon clan were hanged on the Castlegate of Aberdeen; and three days later, Huntly’s son, Sir John Gordon, was executed at the same place, “greatly pitied, for he was a manly youth, exceedingly handsome, and just in the opening bloom of life.” George Gordon, the late Earl’s eldest son, was seized and imprisoned in the Castle of Dunbar. Strathbogie Castle was then rifled. Many of its rich furnishings and ornaments were taken to Holyrood House; others of them were carried by Moray to the Castle of Darnaway to fit up his newly acquired residence in this ancient Earldom, which was once held by James Stuart, a natural son of James IV. George Gordon was tried for treason, convicted, and sentenced to be executed. But in 1565 he was pardoned by the Queen, and restored to his titles and lands as fifth Earl of Huntly. Thus Moray managed to crush and humble the great house of Huntly only for a time. Early in November, 1562, the Queen proceeded from Aberdeen southward by Dundee, Perth, Stirling, and reached Edinburgh on the 21st of the month.¹

♦ “Stratbogie” replaced with “Strathbogie”

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 218, 219,
220, 222; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 73, 74; Buchanan,