"Il est toujours dangereux et souvent puéril de vouloir interpréter les sentiments secrets des personnages historiques."[182] (Lanfrey, vol. iv. p. 403. Paris, 1870.) Mr. Froude's attention to this teaching would rapidly suppress "air-drawn crowns" and such like stage properties, so freely used by him for dramatic effect.
SOME OMISSIONS.
Mr. Froude appears to have no knowledge of the important proceedings at Mary's first Parliament, May, 1563, when the corpse of the late Earl of Huntly, kept for the purpose since the previous October, was brought in for attainder. Forfeiture was declared mainly for Murray's benefit, and at the same time the forfeitures of the Earl of Sutherland (the evidence against him being forgeries) and eleven barons of the house of Gordon were passed. In vain the Countesses of Huntly and Sutherland endeavored to petition the queen; they were, by Murray's intervention, denied access to her. Nor does our historian appear to have heard of the circumstances attending Murray's surreptitious procuring of the queen's signature to the death-warrant of young Huntly. It is a most interesting episode, but we have not room for it. Some three weeks later, we find a curious letter of Randolph to Cecil, which need not be sought for in Froude. It is important as showing the peculiar esteem in which Murray was held at the court of —— Elizabeth. A packet addressed to Queen Mary had been stopped and opened by the English officials at Newcastle. Mary, not recognizing her position as the vassal of Elizabeth, complained of it to Randolph. Whereupon Randolph writes to Cecil, (June, 1563,) advising, "If any suspected letters be taken, not to open them, but to send them to my Lord of Moray, of whose services the Queen of England is sure." And good reason there was to be sure; for all the world, except Mr. Froude, knows that the "stainless," from first to last, was the bribed and pensioned agent of Elizabeth.
KNOX AND THE COUNCIL.
"The Queen of Scots," says Mr. Froude, "had quarrelled again with Knox, whom she attempted to provide with lodgings in the castle; the lords had interfered, and anger and disappointment had made her ill." (Vol. vii. p. 549.)
Here again Mary seems to fall away from the high standard of "consummate actress;" but, on the other hand, Mr. Froude is fully up to his own standard of consummate historian; for the passage is clever, even for him. Here is what it all means: Cranston and Armstrong, two members of Knox's congregation who were afterward among the murderers of Riccio, had been arrested and thrown into prison for raising a riot in the chapel royal at Holyrood, to prevent service there. And why should they not? A Catholic queen had no rights which her Protestant subjects were bound to respect. Knox thereupon sent a circular throughout Scotland convening his brethren to meet in Edinburgh on a certain day—in other words, to excite tumult and inaugurate civil war. Let Randolph, Mr. Froude's favorite authority, tell the rest.
Randolph to Cecil, Dec. 21, 1563:
"The lords had assembled to take order with John Knox and his faction, who intended, by a mutinous assembly made by his letter before, to have rescued two of their brethren from course of law for using an outrage," etc.
Murray and Maitland sent for Knox and remonstrated with him. But Knox showed no respect for either of them. Nothing came of the interview, and they had him summoned before the queen and her privy council. Seriously ill as she was, she attended. Now compare these facts with Mr. Froude's statement above, (vol. vii. p. 549,) and see if it is possible to crowd into three lines more misrepresentation and malevolence. Note quarrelled. Mary knew nothing of the affair until after the action of the lords and the attempt of Murray and Maitland to persuade Knox. Mr. Froude says Mary attempted to imprison him, and the lords interfered. "Anger and disappointment made her ill." Now, this Knox affair occurred while Randolph was waiting to have audience of Mary, but was delayed on account of her illness. To return to the council. Knox's seditious letter was produced. He boldly avowed it, and significantly observed, referring to certain reported practices of Murray and Maitland, that "no forgeries had been interpolated in the spaces he had left blank." A week after this event, Randolph describes Mary as still sick, although compelled to confer with her council.