Page images
PDF
EPUB

alarmed and terrified nation believed at first the evidence of their senses.' It is true that the Edinburgh rabble had been inflamed against her by the preachers; but, so far as we are aware, any reliable evidence that is available goes to show that had it not been for the terrorism exercised by a few resolute men, the nation as a whole would have gone solid for the Queen. Knox himself admitted that "the wicked," as he calls her party, "might have exceeded the faithful;" and that had she remained at Dunbar, "could she have had patience to stay at Dunbar for three or four days without any stir," the nation would have rallied round her. "The people did not join as was expected;" and it is added by Maitland, "" never a ane came to us after Carberry Hill." Even in Edinburgh itself the tide turned so quickly that it was thought prudent by the Lords to convey the captive Queen without delay to Lochleven, strongly guarded and under cover of night.

Mrs Oliphant's defence of the literary apologist of the Congregation against the charge of ingratitude to the mistress who had been good to him, is more ingenious than convincing. At the baptism of the infant James in December 1566, Buchanan had lauded the Queen to the skies; within the year he was her most savage critic. He did not hesitate to affirm, for instance, in the 'Detectio,' that during the period when he was in daily attendance at Court, her immorality was shameless and notorious. Mrs Oliphant suggests that he may have been ignorant of the scandal at the time, and that when he found he had been deceived he gave vent to his fury and abhorrence. But (apart from the fact that there was no scandal to

conceal) the 'Detectio' is characterised not so much by an angry energy of fury and abhorrence as by a cold and calculated malignity of detraction,-the art of the rhetorician being everywhere more palpable than the passion of the moralist. Mr Hill Burton did not love Mary; but even Mr Burton could not stomach the 'Detectio.' Of all caricatures the 'Detectio' was in his opinion the grossest. "In it," he adds, a number of incredible charges are heaped up ;" and then he proceeds to inquire what could have induced Buchanan to defame his mistress in this outrageous fashion?

He did it-is the somewhat surprising explanation—because in producing a great work of rhetorical art, it was necessary to follow "the grand forms of ancient classical denunciation "-the "grand forms of ancient classical denunciation" being apparently the literary equivalent for wilful lying. But even from this point of view the writer surely overshot the mark, for the result was a picture "so inhuman and impossible in its utter blackness" that it produced an immediate reaction, and has done not a little to discredit the faction on whose behalf it was penned.

It may be freely admitted that the Casket Letters were not written by George Buchanan; and yet Mrs Oliphant's plea for their genuineness (which, to do her justice, is not very strenuously urged) need not be accepted as conclusive. The Glasgow letter is, as she remarks, by far the most important; for it not only contains the really damaging confessions, but is in itself a miracle of literary art. Froude has said that only Shakespeare or Mary Stuart could have written it—at all events the writer, supposing it to be forged, must have been of unquestionable

"Mr

imaginative genius. It is one of the most wonderful compositions ever given to the world. We look on with awe while these dark secrets

of the heart are unfolded "and more to the same effect. Now what is known as the Glasgow letter consists of many closely printed pages of small type, and the Glasgow letter is only one of seven or eight that were produced and printed by Buchanan. The others are in no sense Shakespearian; and while the Shakespearian passages in the Glasgow letter do not extend to a dozen lines, they are quite out of keeping with the rest of the letter, which

is as dull and decorous as a State Paper. One Shakespearian passage represents the writer-the high-bred, high-spirited, intrepid Mary-as meekly deprecating the anger of a lover of whom she stands in mortal terror; in another she is made to boast coarsely and offensively of her own infamous treachery to the helpless Darnley: "Have ye not desire to laugh to see me lie so well?" Never was a Shakespearian reputation more easily gained; and the neglected writers of the courtly rhapsodical, high-flown romances of the Elizabethan age, must feel with a pang (if they feel at all now) that "Oblivion blindly scattereth her poppies."

Apart from the Casket Letters, we should like to have heard the views of so competent and skilful a critic as Mrs Oliphant upon that version of the events of Mary's reign on which the most recent defence of her innocence is based. The construction may or may not be sound; but we have not yet seen any answer that commends itself to our judgment. In the 'Stuart Relics' the case for the defence in its latest form has been briefly restated :—

"Faction and fanaticism were the

rocks on which the bark which carried Mary's fortunes was wrecked. There can be no doubt now that she was the victim of a conspiracy which, from the day she left France, was more or less actively at work. The men who engaged in it had resolved that she should fail, and they kept on her track with merciless tenacity till she was Knox in Scotland, hunted down.

menace to

Cecil in England, were the real leaders than once defeated by the high spirit of an enterprise which, though more and resolute bearing of the Queen, ultimately brought her to the block. The one saw in her a Protestantism; the other, a menace to England. It is possible that they judged justly. Lethington was of a different mind; but Lethington, though he knew Mary's most secret inclinations better than any other man, may have been mistaken. She may have misled him. Her candour and her frankness may have been assumed.

We know, besides, that 'the mark at which he always shot' was the union of the kingdoms under a Scottish Prince. He believed that

through Mary alone could Union be secured; and the ardour with which he advocated her claims may have blinded him to the risks they involved. But even if we should come to hold that Knox and Cecil had good reason to dread the ascendancy of the Scottish Queen, it cannot be denied that their methods were cruel and their instruments base. The injury they inflicted upon Scotland was incalculable. The unfortunate country, which had enjoyed a brief period of peace, again became the theatre of deadly strife. Nothing like the 'Douglas wars the ferocity of a Border feud inflamed by religious passion had hitherto been known in Scotland. For all this Knox and Cecil were responsible. It may not have been too heavy a price to pay; they may have been bound at all hazards to rid themselves of Mary Stuart; but the fact remains that the Scottish Anarchy was their joint work."

If this view be correct, the conclusion that Mary was more sinned against than sinning becomes logically irresistible. The assassination of Rizzio, the Lennox marriage,

the defection of Moray, the Runabout-Raid, the Darnley murder, the Bothwell marriage, were merely moves in the game which Cecil and Knox were playing. They had one end and one end only in view-to make Mary impossible. She was to be divided from her subjects; she was to be deprived of her good name; she was to be forced into an untenable position. What have hitherto been regarded as the criminal indiscretions of the Queen are now seen to have been difficul

ties expressly created for her by the untiring animosity of her foes, The Bothwell marriage was the last link in the chain. An unscrupulous faction thrust her into his arms; and when she had reluctantly consented to a distasteful union, they turned upon her and swore that she was his accomplice.

With the Edinburgh of Mary Stuart (one of the most brilliant and animated pictures in the book) Mrs Oliphant concludes her his torical survey, the subsequent chapters being devoted to very pleasant sketches of the great men who since the beginning of the eighteenth century have made Edinburgh and Scotland memorable Allan Ramsay, Robert Burns, Walter Scott. The succession of James VI. to the English throne was (even more emphatically than the Act of Union itself) "the end of an auld sang." The smaller kingdom indeed maintained its nationality for a hundred years, but the Stuarts were swept away by the stronger current of the wider stream. Whether they might not have been happier had fortune been less kind, is one of those puzzling inquiries on which Sir Thomas Browne loved to speculate, and to which no confident reply can be given. But, as has been suggested, the seeming gain, in so far

as they were concerned, may possibly have been a real loss :

"When a Scottish Prince ascended the English throne, Scotland was jubilant. The stubborn determination to remain free had never been its overcome, and had

now won

reward. The ancient prophecies had had not been fought in vain. Under come true. The War of Independence no other conditions, indeed, so far as one can judge, could Union have been peacefully brought about. The jealous susceptibilities of the weaker people were allayed. A Stuart King took the place of Tudor and Plantagenet ; and through good and evil fortune Scotland as a whole had been true to the Stuarts. A resolute and disciplined minority, indeed, had driven Mary into exile; but, even in her lowest estate, she had failed to alienate the affectionate fidelity of two-thirds of her people. The nation at large, it is now generally admitted, was at no time hostile to her. As it was a small band of Independents with Cromwell at their head who put Charles I. to death, so it was a small band of Calvinists with Knox at their head who banished Mary. And even when Mary was banished, the rights

of her infant son had been scrup

а

ulously protected. It seemed wonderful stroke of luck that made the ruler of a petty province and an impoverished people the sovereign of a rich and prosperous empire; but the seeming gain was possibly a real loss. In spite of his personal eccentricities, James VI. had been fairly popular with the Scots; but when he crossed the Border, the frivolous pedantry and clownish gait of the wisest fool in Christendom could not fail to excite the ridicule of a polished society. Under the fierce light that beat about the English throne the womanish

[blocks in formation]

weaknesses of the modern SolomonSolomon the son of David 'sharply and grotesquely accentuated. The initial misunderstanding was never entirely healed. It is possible that the English people did not understand the Stuarts; it is certain that the Stuarts did not understand the English people. In Scotland no steady popular pressure had been brought to bear upon the sovereign. He enjoyed, as a rule, complete freedom of action,

-doing what was right in his own eyes, until the nobles were gravely displeased, when they rose in arms and put him to death. Parliamentary opposition was practically unknownwhat resistance there was, though violent, being intermittent and spasmodic. But in England, from an almost unknown antiquity and by an almost unbroken tradition, the people had been taught to shelter their political liberties and their civic privileges behind the forms of the Constitution. No tax could be levied except with the consent of the Commons; no citizen could be punished except by legal process. The most imperious of the Tudors did not venture to cross the line that inveterate and immemorial usage had drawn ; and he knew by an inherited instinct how far he could safely go. On the other hand, the whole domain of English constitutional law was a terra incognita to James and to his son. It might be said for them (were it any excuse) that they knew not what they did. The principles which were most deeply rooted in the convictions of Englishmen were unintelligible to rulers who had been educated abroad. So Charles entered upon a hopeless contest with a light heart. He brushed aside the timehonoured limitations of the Constitution as if they were cobwebs. It is possible that the wisest ruler could not ultimately have averted the conflict. There were theories in the air which made all government impossible. Religion had reacted upon politics; and the Puritan had become the Republican. The sharp antagonism between the men who declared that they would live as their fathers had lived, would believe as their fathers had believed, would worship as their fathers had worshipped, and the men who hated the Church and detested the Monarchy, was certain sooner or later to bring Cavalier and Roundhead into deadly conflict. But although sooner or later an appeal to arms might have been inevitable, it was the incurable perversity of the King that precipitated the crisis. He invited a conflict which might have been delayed. In so far as he did not himself lead, he was led by Laud

and Strafford. Laud appears to have been even more insensate, more molelike, than his master; but Wentworth was a man of quick intelligence and profound policy. It is foolish to condemn such a man without a hearing -as most historians have been inclined to do. We may be tolerably sure that he saw more than we are able to see now. He may have felt, and felt truly, that the revolution in men's minds which had taken place, which was taking place, must lead to anarchy. He may have felt, and felt truly, that the revolutionary forces could only be kept in check by rapid and decisive action, and that procrastination would be fatal to the monarchy. Had he succeeded in crushing the Revolution he might possibly have been reckoned a farseeing English statesman; but he failed, and in such circumstances failure cannot be condoned."

Between the execution of Charles I. and the rising of the '45 a hundred years intervened; but during that time there was little in the records of the Stuarts on which their partisans can look back with satisfaction. The sæva Pelopis domus was tottering to its fall; yet to the very end the Scots adhered with rare fidelity to the race that had ruled them so long. It was among the barren mountains and the brave men of the western seaboard that the last of the Stuarts bade a final farewell to "the vision of a kingly crown." In the '45 Moidart and Morar were remote and inaccessible; even to-day the land of the Camerons and the Macdonalds a land of wood and water, of crag and glen, of windy seas and rocky islands and Atlantic sunsets-is little known and rarely visited; but it has associations which will not be quickly obliterated; for it is the country lying between Loch Shiel and Loch Arkaig that is most closely identified with the brilliant and daring adventure of Prince Charlie.

YANKEE HOMES AND BUFFALO HAUNTS.

WE had a lucky but almost uneventful voyage to New York in the Cunard s.s. Servia, crossing the Atlantic in the most wonderful way between heavy storms on both sides, and just missing each. The journey after leaving Queenstown took just a week from Sunday, October 18th, to Sunday, 4 P.M., 26th of October, when we disembarked. We left Liverpool, Saturday, 13th, about two. A very

amusing incident took place in Queenstown harbour. Two pretty Irish girls who had embarked on our ship, were on the arrival of the Servia in that port soon after joined by a gentleman who had come by mail from England, and who came off from the shore on the steam-tender. This gentleman, with the most excited and pantomimic gestures, begged one of these fair maidens to return to shore with him and become his bride. Before his arrival on board he had, we learned, sent her five telegrams to the same effect, to prevent her departure if possible. But the young lady at first appeared to be obdurate, for the unfortunate man was seen going off again to the shore on the tender, hatless, and holding out his outstretched arms imploringly to the lady of his love. But that man was not to be beat. He returned when the tender came back again with the last mails, and this time he brought a parson with him. This pledge of the honesty of his intentions of marrying her had, I understand, been exacted by this cautious Irish young lady as condition of her going ashore with him. She now went with him, and the Servia sailed without her. Let us hope they were happy ever after.

a

On landing at New York our first experience of the country was the excessive rudeness of the custom-house officials. Discourtesy was nothing to the very insolent manner in which a customhouse official ordered a delicate English lady to unstrap her numerous boxes herself, and utterly refused either to give her any assistance, or any information as to whether she could get any porter to assist her in her arduous task. I have travelled all over the world, but never saw a custom - house officer behave so badly to a lady before. If it was meant to show that the Americans despise those who belong to their own mother country, it was done in a way only to make contempt fall back upon their own heads. Our own exertions on her behalf not sufficing, a German-American gentleman from New York very kindly came to the rescue, and might soon have been seen voluntarily unstrapping the boxes for her in a way which will make his memory always glad to our remembrance. A gentleman he was indeed! No more need be said.

My first idea of New York was, how like the outskirts of London were the streets we passed through from the docks. They gave one a general idea of Hammersmith, and the more one sees of New York, the more English it seems to one. The only thing they have which we have not got in England seems to be the elevated railway running down the Sixth and other avenues. In the hotels they have a clever invention which might well be copied elsewhere. For a bell, is in every room a dial-plate with a needle. This needle on being turned to any one of about

« PreviousContinue »