Mary Queen of Scots in History. C. A. Campbell

motives.

      Mary Queen of Scots was born in Linlithgow Palace, in Scotland, on the 8th of December, 1542. The condition of Scotland at the time was sad and evil-boding. Her father, the well-beloved James V., was at Falkland, dying of a broken heart, in consequence of the humiliating conduct of the disaffected Scottish nobles at Solway Moss. When told that a daughter had been born to him at Linlithgow, he gave no sign of pleasure, but sadly said, "God's will be done." Then, his memory reverting to the person through whom the Stewarts had ascended the throne of Scotland, he added, "It (the crown) came with a lass and it will go with a lass." He died shortly after, in the thirty-first year of his age, leaving to his distracted country an infant queen, only six days old.

      The care of the young queen devolved on her mother, Mary of Lorraine, a lady of the famous French house of Guise. Did the scope of the present sketch but sanction the digression, I should be pleased to dwell a little on the character of this distinguished woman, whose memory some historians have, according to their custom, endeavoured to blacken, but who stands out in the judgment of the best historians of every creed as a generous, forgiving and heroic woman, who conscientiously defended the rights of her daughter and maintained the laws of Scotland, until an edifying and pathetic death withdrew her from the troubled scenes in which the years of her widowhood had been passed.

      It is the privilege, or perhaps the misfortune, of rulers, that their marriage is one of the first things that engage the attention of their people; and while the nursery was disturbed by the cries of the infant queen, the councils of England and Scotland were agitated with the question of her marriage. Henry VIII., of England, had an infant son, Edward, afterwards Edward VI., for whom he wished to secure from the Scottish parliament a solemn promise of marriage with the young Queen of Scots. As might be presumed, it was not so much the desire of cultivating the friendship of his northern neighbours that actuated the English monarch, as the hope of accomplishing, by means of a marriage, what his predecessors had failed to accomplish by means of the sword, the subjugation of the Scottish kingdom. To have a clear conception of the political relations between the two countries, and to understand the foundation of the English claims, it will be necessary to take a retrospective glance at the history of Scotland.

      In 844, the Scots of Dalriada and various Pictish races became united under King Kenneth McAlpine. During the reign of Malcolm I., who ascended the throne of Alban a hundred years later, the district of Cumberland was, by Edmund of England, made over to the King of Scotland, on condition that the latter should, in return, render him certain assistance in time of war. The acquisition of other districts fronting the Scottish border was subsequently made, in return for offered assistance against the common enemy--the Danes. But the annexation of Cumberland was the principal source of the endless conflicts between the sister kingdoms, until the union of the crowns under James VI. For those possessions which he had acquired within the kingdom of England, the Scottish king was obliged to pay homage to his neighbouring monarch. In the course of time, however, the English Kings began to claim that the homage they received from Scotland was for the entire Scottish kingdom, as well as for the Scottish possessions within the English borders. This the Scots denied, protesting that, while paying homage for the English border lands which they had acquired, they were a free and independent people. Such a state of affairs may seem strange to us, but it was nothing uncommon in those feudal times. William the Conqueror, for instance, although independent sovereign of England, paid homage to the King of France for the dukedom of Normandy, which he held within French territory.

      In those circumstances, any English king who might desire to make war against Scotland could always put forward the old claim as a plea for his action. Unfortunately, the Scottish parliament, in order to secure the release of their King, William the Lion, on one occasion acknowledged the English claim of suzerainty. A few years later, however, Richard the Lion-hearted renounced the English claim, on payment by Scotland of a certain sum of money, which that chivalrous crusader needed to defray the expenses of his expedition to the Holy Land. The country remained independent for about one hundred years; then disputes concerning the rightful successor to Alexander III. having disunited and weakened the Scottish people, Edward I. found the time opportune for renewing the old claim. Twelve competitors for the throne appeared in the field, who, being not altogether averse to sacrificing national honour to personal advantage, were willing to acknowledge the supremacy of England, in order to win the invaluable influence of Edward for their respective causes. The principal claimants were Robert Bruce--not the great Bruce--and John Baliol. Edward decided in favour of Baliol, who forthwith ascended the throne as vassal of England. But the Scottish lion was soon aroused by the encroachments of Edward, and Baliol was forced to disclaim allegiance to his patron. Entering into a league with France, he began to prepare for the invasion of England. (This was the beginning of the long-continued friendship between Scotland and France, which completely died out only with the death of the Stewart cause.) But Scotland was not prepared to cope with the haughty Longshanks, and it was reduced to the condition of a province of England. This could not endure long. Disunion, and not lack of national valour, had opened the way to defeat. A leader only was needed, and a leader soon arose in the person of William Wallace, the soldier and hero-patriot. Although Wallace, after having driven the English out of his country, did not succeed in establishing her independence on a lasting basis, nevertheless his achievements were not vain; he had aroused his countrymen to action, and his patriotic conduct before the English judges in Westminster Hall, could not fail to open the eyes of certain Scottish nobles who, from motives of self-interest, had accepted the foreign rule, to a realization of their dishonourable position. When accused of being a traitor to King Edward, Wallace replied: "I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject."

      Scarcely had death struck the torch of patriotism from the hand of Wallace, when it was caught up by a worthy successor, who had learned bravery by the side of Wallace himself. Robert Bruce was the person whom Providence had destined, not merely to defeat the enemies of his country on the field of battle, but also to unite and consolidate his kingdom and to cause it to be once more recognized as free and independent. David II., son and successor of the great liberator, died without issue, and thus the male line of the Bruce family became extinct. But the nation, being strongly attached to the memory of their deliverer, called to the throne his descendant through the female line. Bruce's daughter, Marjory, had married the Lord High Steward of Scotland, and had a son, Robert. Marjory Bruce was the "lass" to whom James V. made reference on his death-bed; and her son, who in 1370 ascended the throne as Robert II., was the first of that long, celebrated, and unfortunate line of Stewart monarchs. Brave, witty, rash, affable, obstinate, magnanimous, they exhibit a character in which all the qualities that make men beloved, and nearly all that make men great, are perversely blended with many frailties and follies. Besides, some remorseless genius would seem to have presided over their lives and to have ingeniously contrived to make their miseries greater, and their lives more pitiable, by leading them into full view of prosperity and glory before it struck them to the earth. The good Robert III. died of sorrow at the misfortune of his sons; James I., the brave, learned and wise monarch, died under the murderer's steel; James II. was killed by the bursting of a cannon; James III., thrown from his horse and wounded, was stabbed to death by an assassin; James IV., the pride and darling of the nation, fell, sword in hand, on a disastrous field of battle; James V. died of a broken heart, and that, too, like his predecessors, in the blossom of his manhood; Mary (if I be permitted to anticipate), died at the block, the victim of politico-religious utilitarianism and her cousin's jealousy; and Charles I. died at the block, the victim of a military despotism.

      During these centuries successive regal minorities afforded the nobles, at all times powerful and turbulent, ample opportunity of increasing their power, until it became a standing menace to the throne. James IV., besides his other good works for the welfare of his people, did much towards reducing the power of the nobles and centralizing authority in the crown. But the progress of the country received a sudden check, and the bright career of the King was brought to a mournful close, by an event that did for Scotland, on the eve of the Reformation, what the Wars of the Roses had already done for England--deprived it of its best and bravest nobles. James' rash invasion of England ended in the doleful battle of Flodden, which robbed Scotland of her king and almost of her independence. There is, however, one feature in that sad event which is pleasing to contemplate; it was the last great battle in which a united Scotland stood with