So much for Mary's own evidence. It is, to say the least, faulty reasoning, to adduce the Queen's march against the Earl of Huntly as proof that she wished, either from policy or from conviction, to support the Protestant cause. In view of the firm and unequivocal stand she had hitherto taken in defence of her religion, the presumption that she was now prepared to sacrifice its interests, is unwarranted, and, furthermore, is unnecessary, as other good and sufficient reasons for her action can readily be found.
Being young and inexperienced in dealing with such turbulent nobles as then surrounded her throne, and having extremely few persons in whom she could venture to put her trust, she at first allowed herself to be influenced in her method of government by her half-brother, the Lord James. Now, Lord James, as is commonly admitted by the best historians, hoped to work his way to the Scottish throne, despite his illegitimacy, and naturally he was anxious to overthrow every power that would prove an obstacle to the advancement of his cause. Besides, he had his eye fixed on the Earldom of Moray, which had for some time been controlled by Huntly. The obstacle could be removed, and the Earldom gained, if Huntley could be "worried" into war, and then overthrown by the authority of the Queen. Three most significant things are certain,--that Lord James acquired the Earldom of Moray (hence his title of Earl of Moray) immediately that Huntly and his house were ruined; that he attempted, without Mary's knowledge, to procure the execution of Huntly's son, George, whose life had been spared, but who had been placed in ward at Stirling; and that the Gordons never after acted towards the Queen as if they held her responsible for the injuries they had suffered, but, on the contrary, gave ample proof that they considered Moray the responsible party. However, if Mary thought no danger threatened her from the Gordon country, she could not be excused for allowing herself to be made the instrument of Lord James' ambition in so grave a matter.
The fact is, the unfortunate tragedy was the result of an old and bitter enmity between Huntly and the Lord James. The hated enemy came, confident in the support of royal authority, which he almost fully controlled, and committed acts that exasperated the proud Highland Earl, and drove him into rebellion--for to oppose Lord James in these circumstances was to resist the Queen. As far as Mary was concerned, religion had as little to do with the overthrow of the Gordons as it had to do with the execution of Chastellar.
Her conversation with Knox in which she is said to have revealed a state of religious doubt, is, to my mind, a proof of her polemical cleverness. She takes Knox on his own principle of private judgment and delicately shows him that it cannot satisfy her mind--that it cannot raise her above doubt. Knox tells her one thing; her uncle, the Cardinal, tells her another; whom is she to believe? She was setting a snare for Knox, which he could not escape, except by acknowledging an authority in religion that rested on a sounder foundation than either his or the Cardinal's opinion.
But why, it may be asked, did she not make her religious zeal more evident at the outset, by sending Bishops to the Council of Trent, in compliance with the request of the Pope, and by using her influence to obtain at least religious toleration for her Catholic subjects? The answer is simple,--because it was beyond her power to do either. She had as much as she could do to save the life of her chaplain when he said Mass in the Chapel-Royal; how could she take any steps publicly to relieve her Catholic subjects?
The report of the Papal Nuncio, Nicholas Goudanus, who came to Edinburgh in June, 1562, throws light on the helpless condition of the Queen, and disposes us to sympathize with her in the miseries she was destined to suffer at so early an age, rather than to nourish suspicions of her sincerity and good conscience. He says he was in Edinburgh a month before he could see the Queen, and even then he had to be received in private, while the members of the court were out. Of all the Bishops, the Bishop of Dunkeld alone ventured to receive him. The nuncio came to the Bishop's house disguised as a banker's clerk, and, according to a pre-arranged device to avert suspicion, the conversation during dinner was limited to money matters.
Mary informed the nuncio that, in order to preserve some remains of the Catholic faith, she had been obliged to do many things much against her will. As regards the power exercised over her by the nobles, Goudanus remarks: "The men in power acknowledge the Queen's title, but prevent her from exercising any of the rights of sovereignty;[#] whenever her opinion does not agree with theirs, they oppose her at once. Not only that, but they deceive her as well, and frighten her with threats of an English invasion, especially when she is meditating any steps in support of her faith."
[#] This statement, however, is too sweeping.
As time advanced, Mary became more and more beloved by her people, although the opposition to her religion never abated. When, in 1563, she attended the opening of her first parliament, she was enthusiastically hailed by the populace, whose applause grew all the louder when they heard her address the assembly, not, as they had expected she would, in a strange language, but in their own native tongue, marked though it was by a foreign accent. Knox, who feared the "politick heads" among the children of God might so far fall from grace as to extend a degree of toleration to the outcast children of men, was irritated by this display of affection for the Queen, and he took revenge by denouncing the womanly vanity displayed by her and her ladies, especially the "targetting of their tails"--whatever that meant.
We are, as a rule, so much occupied with the romantic and tragic features of Mary's life, that we are apt to overlook her qualities as a ruler and the works which she accomplished for the benefit of her people. It may in brief be said, that she was deeply interested in every measure that could promote their welfare, that during her reign the country was comparatively peaceful and prosperous, and that the beneficent influence of her government is attested by various public records. Sir Thomas Craig, one of her Privy Councillors, has witnessed to her sound judgment in these words: "I have often heard the most serene Princess Mary Queen of Scotland discourse so appositely and rationally in all affairs which were brought before the Privy Council that she was admired by all.... She had not studied law; and yet, by the natural light of her judgment, when she reasoned on matters of equity and justice, she oftimes had the advantage of the ablest lawyer. Her other discourses and actions were suitable to her great judgment. No word ever dropped from her mouth that was not exactly weighed and pondered. As for her liberality and other virtues they are well known."