If

the old religion. All the secrets of the Catho- | life were treated with equal prolixity. lic malcontents and conspirators were confided to them; and too often they were themselves the contrivers of treason. All their busy doings everything they saw or heard, their hopes, fears, and conjectures, were fully reported to Philip. Intriguers and gossips as they were, there was no lack of materials for their despatches; and De Silva, the first ambassador with whom we become acquainted in these volumes, was an accomplished gentleman and a clever letter-writer. He could report his conversations with Queen Elizabeth or Cecil with a dramatic spirit scarcely inferior to that of our own distinguished diplomatist, Sir Hamilton Seymour; and the curiosity of his royal master gave constant encouragement to his facile pen. And now, after the lapse of three hundred years, all that was written for the secret information of Philip is revealed to the present generation, and throws a flood of unexpected light upon a critical period in English history.

the history of England is to be written throughout at such length, may the Lord have mercy on our children, and send them readable abridgments!

With these introductory remarks, we will now follow Mr. Froude through these interesting volumes, inviting special notice to the more striking revelations of his new witnesses, and touching, with friendly criticism, upon such of his conclusions as we may not be prepared to accept.

The Simancas papers, however, full and instructive as they are, form but a small part of the manuscript evidence which Mr. Froude has embraced in his researches. He has also ransacked the records in London, at Edinburgh, at Hatfield, and at Paris. With so large a mass of new materials, his history naturally assumes an original character. Where the narrative differs little, if at all, from that of other historians, the authorities are not the same; and as he prefers his own recent discoveries to more familiar documents, and cites them at great length, his work possesses at once the charms and the blemishes of contemporary memoirs. The reign of Elizabeth is so hackneyed a theme in English and foreign literature, that it is refreshing to read the 'oft-told tale' in the very language of the actors themselves. But if too much prominence be given to such authorities, the higher philosophy of history is in danger of being lost in a multiplicity of secondary events; while the historian, whose guidance we seek in a concise and comprehensive narrative, is found to rival the memoirwriter in fulness of detail, and consequently in voluminousness. Into this latter fault, at least, we fear that Mr. Froude is liable to be beguiled. The two volumes just issued embrace no more than six years and a half of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, beginning in February 1567, and ending in August 1573. As this reign continued for thirty years after the last of these dates, we might look forward to not less, perhaps, than ten more volumes, if the remaining years of the Queen's

She

The eighth volume of this work concluded, as our readers may remember, with the murder of Darnley, in which crime no pains were spared to prove, with crushing force, the complicity of Mary Stuart. The narrative is here continued, and Scotland occupies the larger portion of the present volumes. Her celebrated Queen is still the heroine of the tale, but every shred of romance, with which her character has hitherto been veiled, has been ruthlessly torn away. From various causes, no other Queen in history has occasioned so zealous and long-continued a controversy as Mary Stuart. She was beautiful, brave, and unfortunate. She was the hope of one party,the dread and abhorrence of another. was accused of crimes which her friends indignantly denied, and her enemies reiterated; and her adventures, her sufferings, and her wrongs have been illustrated by history, poetry, and romance. Some writers have boldly undertaken to vindicate her reputation from all stain, while others have chosen to dwell upon her attractions and accomplishments as a woman, and her cruel misfortunes as a Queen, rather than upon the dark and evil mysteries of her life. Her ablest champions were Chalmers, Whitaker, and the elder Tytler, to whom we must add the late Professor Aytoun, who, in his spirited poem of Bothwell,' was able to shield his heroine with fair poetic license. A modern French author, M. Wiesener, has recently produced an elaborate volume in her defence; and Prince Labanoff was moved by the same sentimental interest to publish a valuable collection of all the letters known to exist from her pen. But our greatest historians, Robertson, Hume, Laing, Hallam, and Sharon Turner, have been persuaded of her guilt; and even the Catholic Lingard. though inclining to her side, has scarcely ventured to acquit her. Among contemporary writers, the learned and judicious historian of Scotland, Mr. Fraser Tytler, reluctantly declines her defence, and the

*See Hist. of Scot., vol. vii. pp. 109, 121, 122, 140, 268, &c.

eminent French historian, M. Mignet, with the aid of the most recent authorities, including the Simancas papers,* gives sober and dispassionate judgment against her memory. †

sleeping in the house which was destroyed.' Yet the intended assassination, of which she had no suspicion herself, was known several days before both in London and in Paris. This coincidence, however, must not be pressed too far. No one doubts that the murder had been deliberately planned by Bothwell and his confederates; but, unless the Queen had been an accomplice, she was the very person from whom the plot would have been most carefully concealed.*

But the most damning evidence to her prejudice was her scandalous intimacy with the murderer Bothwell, and her determination to protect him from justice. This part of her conduct has already been condemned by all candid writers; but Mr. Froude places before us more distinctly the state of public opinion in Scotland and elsewhere, upon these events:

The case was but too clear before Mr. Froude approached it; but, if he has added few direct proofs to those already accumulated, he has found confirmation of them in the adverse opinions of contemporary observers. All this evidence, direct and indirect, he uses not with the calm temper of a judge, but with the fierceness of a bitter advocate. Her guilt is the great argument of this history. If Mary was guilty of the murder of her husband, he maintains that Elizabeth and her ministers were justified in their treatment of her; if she was innocent, they must stand condemned. Hence his merciless severity against Mary, whom he brands throughout these volumes with opprobrious names, which he is never weary of reiterating. The issue raised by him is not, however, to be so accepted until he is able to show that the Queen of England and her ministers were entitled to judge an indebills," in which their names were linked topendent Queen, or that their treatment of Mary was founded upon their convictions of bold as they were, they were startled at the pasgether in an infamous union of crime; and her guilt. She may have been guilty, assionate instinct with which their double guilt had we believe her to have been; but we are been divined.' (Vol. iii. p. 8.) not, on that account, prepared to defend the conduct of Elizabeth.

'Midnight cries,' he says, 'were heard in the wynds and alleys of Edinburgh, crying for vengeance upon the Queen and Bothwell. Each day, as it broke, showed the walls pasted with

personages.

The nobles were too familiar with deeds The whole of Mary's conduct after the of blood to be much moved by the recent murder of Darnley tended to confirm sus-murder, and many were accomplices in the picions as to her own participation in that crime; but the people, already touched by monstrous crime. On the following morn- the moral influence of the Reformation, ing, Paris, Bothwell's French page and one cried furiously for justice. Their feeling of the gang of assassins against the Queen was shared by higher to her, Yea, she herself was greatly and Her ambassador at Paris wrote wrongously calamnit to be motive principal of the whole, and all done by her order.' He could but say that, rather than that vengeance were not taken, it were better in this world had she lost life and all.' The Spanish ambassador at the Scottish court a Catholic, and a friend of the Queen suspected her guilt; and Queen Elizabeth,

'went to the apartments of the Queen, where Bothwell followed him directly after. Mary Stuart had slept soundly, but was by this time stirring. The windows were still closed. The room was already hung with black, and lighted with candles. She herself was breakfasting in bed, eating composedly, as Paris observed, a newlaid egg. She did not notice or speak to him, for Bothwell came close behind, and talked

in a low voice with her behind the curtain.' (Reign of Elizabeth, vol. iii. p. 5.)

She declared that whoever had taken the enterprise in hand, it had been aimed as well at herself as at the King, since the providence of God only prevented her from

6

guilt of the murder, Mr. Froude sometimes even * In his extreme eagerness to fix upon Mary the contradicts himself. Thus he stated in chap. x. (vol. ii. p. 351), that Morton required the Queen's hand for a warrant' before he would join the conspiracy for the murder of Darnley. Bothwell promised that he would produce it, but it never came,' In chap. (xiii. vol. iii. p. 28), he says, Morton was The list of these authorities, as given in his pre-invited to join, and had only suspended his consent face, is sufficiently long, but is by no means exhaus- till assured under the Queen's hand of her approval. tive. M. Mignet has not, we believe, visited Simancas There were other writings also, which were afterhimself, as Mr. Froude has done; and he therefore wards destroyed.' The fact is, that no such writing only quotes those documents of which copies had was ever known to exist at all. So, too, there is no been made for the French Government. evidence for the assumption that Darnley's illness previous to the murder was caused by poison, yet Mr. Froude believes it.

† Histoire de Marie Stuart, vol. i. p. 261, 268, 281, and App. G., vol. ii. p. 51, &c.

while willing to believe her innocent, ad- | duction of the Queen was planned. Her dressed her in these remarkable words:

...

She

advocates have naturally endeavoured to lay all the blame of this outrage upon BothI cannot but tell you what all the world is well; but her own letters betray her. In thinking. Men say that instead of seizing the them she concerted with her lover the whole murderers, you are looking through your fingers scheme of their elopement; and whatever while they escape; that you will not punish there appears ambiguous was arranged bethose who have done you so great a service, as tween them by their emissary the Earl of though the thing would never have taken place, Huntly, Bothwell's brother-in-law. had not the doers of it been assured of impuni- enjoined him to 'make himself sure of the ty. .. I exhort, I advise, I implore you deep-lords, and free to marry.' She acquainted ly to consider of the matter at once, if it be the nearest friend you have, to lay your hands him that Huntly had great misgivings, ‘beupon the man who has been guilty of the crime cause there are many here, and among them to let no interest, no persuasion, keep you the Earl of Sutherland, who would rather from proving to everyone that you are a noble die than suffer me to be carried away, they princess and a loyal wife.' (Vol. iii. p. 23.) conducting me.' She therefore charged him to be the more circumspect and to have the more power. 'We had yesterday more than 300 horse. . . . For the honour of God, be accompanied rather of more than less, for that is the principal of my care.' Huntly tried to dissuade her from the enterprise; but she told him that, if Bothwell did not withdraw from it, no persuasion, nor death itself, should make her fail of her promise.'* Again, in her conduct at the time of the abduction her collusion was transparent.

Even Catherine de Medicis and the King of France told her, that if she did not exert herself to discover and punish the assassin she would cover herself with infamy.' But Mary Stuart turned a deaf ear to these righteous counsels: she was passionately in love with Bothwell, and, far from avenging the death of Darnley, she was preparing to marry his assassin. He was already married, indeed, but this slight obstacle was to be removed by a divorce, sought on the ground of his own adultery. Bothwell was, at length, called to take part in a mock trial; but, instead of being placed in custody, he rode gallantly from Holyrood on the murdered Darnley's horse, and was cheered by the smiles of Mary Stuart, who nodded a farewell from her window. By trickery and force, it had been contrived that no prosecutor should be forthcoming; and he was pronounced not guilty.

Meanwhile, the intended marriage was whispered about among the people, and everywhere denounced as monstrous and unholy. But there was no hesitation either in Mary or Bothwell. A packed Parliament confirmed the 'purgation' of the latter; and, in order to conciliate the Protestants, the Queen now formally recognised the Reformation. It was not the first t me that a divorce, sought for the sake of another marriage, had favoured the Protestant religion. The next thing to be done was to secure the support of the nobles; and Bothwell, having invited the primate and four bishops, and several noblemen - including the Earls of Argyll, Huntly, Sutherland, and Eglinton to supper, surprised them over their wine into siguing a bond, by which they engaged to resist all slanders against their host, and to promote his marriage with the Queen.

But so scandalous a marriage could not be contracted without embarrassments; and, to avoid all further obstacles, a forcible ab

'She said she would have no blood shed; her people were outnumbered, and, rather than any of them should lose their lives, she would go wherever the Earl of Bothwell wished.' She went quietly away with him, and, the day after the iniquitous divorce had been obtained, she announced her approaching marriage by proclamation. In another week they were married; and, to gain favour with the Protestants, the ceremony was performed according to the Calvinist service.

The sequel of these infamous nuptials is well known. The lords revolted; Bothwell fled; and the Queen being imprisoned in Lochleven Castle, was forced to abdicate in favour of her infant son; while the Earl of Murray, her half-brother, was appointed regent. Then followed Mary's romantic escape from Lochleven; the defeat of her army at Langside; and her fatal flight across the Solway into England. Mr. Froude's narrative of these events differs so little from other histories, that we need not dwell upon them. But he brings out into stronger relief the popular abhorrence

*Hist. of Eliz., vol. iii. pp. 59-63, 117 et seq. These letters are from the celebrated silver casket, the authenticity of which Mr. Froude fully believes. Mr. Fraser Tytler does not place so much reliance upon them, the originals having long since disap peared, and the copies being garbled. (Hist. of Scotland, vol. vii. p. 257.) M. Mignet, however, in an elaborate note (G. vol. 1.), gives numerous proofs ener, has vainly attempted to rebut. that they are genuine, which his opponent, M. Wies

'Off shot the troop-off and away into the darkness. Eleven months had passed since Mary Stuart had been in the saddle, but confinement had not relaxed the sinews which no fatigue could tire. Neither strength nor spirit failed her now. Straight through the night they galloped on, and drew bridle first at Queen's Ferry. Claud Hamilton, with fresh horses, was on the other side of the Forth, and they sprang to their saddles again. A halt was allowed them at Lord Seton's house at Long Niddry, but the Queen required no rest. While the men were stretching their aching legs, Mary Stuart was writing letters at her table. She wrote a despatch to the Cardinal of Lorraine, and sent a messenger off with it to Paris. She sent Ricarton to collect a party of the Hepburns and recover Dunbar, bidding him, after the castle was secured, go on to Bothwell, and

tell him that she was free. Two hours were spent in this way, and then to horse again. Soon after sunrise she was at Hamilton among her friends.' (Vol. iii. p. 213.)

She was soon at the head of an army; but it was routed at Langside, and she was again a fugitive:

Mary Stuart in the darkest colours, so he endeavours to portray the Queen of England in the most favourable light. Whatever her conduct, the best construction is put upon her motives. Thus, her treatment of Mary is represented as kind and sisterly

generous and merciful. That she offered her good advice we have already seen; and when Mary was imprisoned and deposed by her own subjects, Elizabeth espoused her cause as one common to all princes: she could not tolerate rebellion against a crowned head. The head cannot be subject to the foot,' she said, and we cannot recognise in them (the lords) any right to Her feelcall their sovereign to account.' ings are thus described by Mr. Froude :

'Elizabeth's behaviour at this crisis was more

creditable to her heart than to her understanding. . . . She forgot her interest; and her affection and her artifices vanished in resent

ment and pity. Her indignation as a sovereign was even less than her sorrow for a suffering sister. She did not hide from herself the Queen of Scots' faults, but she did not believe in the extent of them; they seemed as nothing beside the magnitude of her calamities, and she was prepared to encounter the worst political consequences rather than stand by and see her sacrificed.' (Vol. iii. p. 131.)

'The country had risen, and all the roads were beset. Peasants, as she struggled along the bye-lanes, cut at her with their reapinghooks. The highway was occupied by Murray's horse. Harassed for once terrified for she knew what would be her fate if she fell again into the hands of the Confederates - she turned She threatened the confederate lords with south, and with six followers, those who had her vengeance if they proceeded to extremibeen with her on the hill, and Livingston, ties against their queen; and when Mary's George Douglas, and the foundling page, who execution was discussed amongst them, had contrived to rejoin her, she made for Gallo- each post from England brought fiercer way. There, in the country of Lord Herries, threats from Elizabeth, which all the warnshe would be safe for a week or two at least, ings of her council could not prevent her the sea would be open to her if she wished to leave Scotland. By cross-paths, by woods and from sending. It might have been almost supposed that, with refined ingenuity, she moors, she went, as if death was behind her ninety-two miles without alighting from her was choosing the means most likely to horse. Many a wild gallop she had had already bring about the catastrophe which she most for her life. She had ridden by moonlight from affected to dread.'* The lords naturally Holyrood to Dunbar, after the murder of Riz-resented her interference, and sternly went zio; she had gone in a night from Lochleven to Hamilton; but this, fated to be her last adventure of this kind, was the most desperate of all. Then she had clear hope before her; now there was nothing but darkness and uncertainty. At night she slept on the bare ground; for food she had oatmeal and buttermilk. On the third day after the battle, she reached Dundrennan Abbey on the Solway.' (Vol. iii. p. 228.)

Is it surprising that so high a spirit and such adventures should have raised Mary Stuart, despite her crimes, into a heroine of romance?

We must now leave her, for awhile, in her misfortunes, and turn to the great Queen who was to become the arbiter of her destinies. As Mr. Froude delights to paint

their own way. Whatever her motives, friendship in such a shape was not a little dangerous to its object, and Cecil did not scruple to tell her that the malice of the world would say that she had used severity to the lords to urge them to rid away the Queen.' When Mary was deposed, Elizabeth threatened to restore her to her throne by force, and intrigued with her friends in Scotland against the Regent:

'So,' says Mr. Froude, 'were sown the seeds of those miserable feuds which for five years harassed the hearths and homes of Scotland which made for ever impossible that more tem.

Hist. of Eliz., vol. iii. p .137. † Ibid., p. 161.