"Uncertain twilight" is pretty. But where were Mary's conspiracies? Had she Randolphs at Elizabeth's court, and Drurys on the border, plotting, intriguing, and bribing English noblemen? Had she two thirds of Elizabeth's council of state pensioned as paid spies? Had she salaried officials to pick up or invent English court scandal for her amusement? Truly it is refreshing to turn from Mary's twilight conspiracies to the honest and noble transactions of Elizabeth, Cecil, and Randolph. But of the malicious gossip of Elizabeth's spies one might not so much complain, if Mr. Froude had the fairness to give their reports without his embroidery of rhetoric and imagination. Thus, when Randolph writes, "There is a silly story afloat that the queen sometimes carries a pistol," Mr. Froude considers himself authorized by Randolph to say, "She carried pistols in hand and pistols at her saddle-bow;" and, as usual, reading her thoughts, goes on to tell us that "her one peculiar hope was to destroy her brother, against whom she bore an especial and unexplained animosity." The personal intimacy between Randolph and Murray more than sufficiently explains the source of the information given in Randolph's letter of Oct. 13th. (Vol. viii. p. 196.) Mr. Froude has a moment of weakness when he says that the intimacy between the queen and Riccio was so confidential as to provoke calumny. That any thing said of Mary Stuart could possibly be calumny is an admission for Mr. Froude only less amazing than that "she was warm and true in her friendships." The queen's indignation against Murray is sufficiently accounted for by the existence of the calumnies, and the fact that Murray's treasons sent him at this time a fugitive to his mistress Elizabeth. A few pages further on, we have Mary riding "in steel bonnet and corselet, with a dagg at her saddle-bow," (vol. viii. p. 213,) for which Mr. Froude quotes Randolph. But Randolph wrote, "If what I have heard be true, she rode," etc., questionable hearsay where Mary Stuart is concerned, answering Mr. Froude's purpose somewhat better than fact.
Through Randolph, Elizabeth announced to Mary that one of the conditions on which she would consent to the Darnley marriage was, that "she must conform to the religion established by law." Upon this, the singular comment is, "It is interesting to observe how the current of the reformation had swept Elizabeth forward in spite of herself." (Vol. viii. p. 187.) Mary's answer was, she "would make no merchandise of her conscience."
MURRAY'S INSURRECTION.
At page 198, vol. viii., after the armed rebellion of Murray and his friends, popularly known in Scotland as "The Runabout Raid," we have Mary
"breathing nothing but anger and defiance. The affection of a sister for a brother was curdled into a hatred the more malignant because it was more unnatural. Her whole passion was concentrated on Murray."
It must be clear to every one how reprehensible Mary was for showing any feeling at all in defence of her crown, her liberty, and her life, and with Mr. Froude's premises and logic, Murray gave a signal proof of affection for his sister in arraying himself against her legitimate authority as the head of an insurrection. Mr. Froude can see, in the just indignation of the queen against domestic traitors in league, with a foreign power, nothing but the violence of a vengeful fury. His anxiety to possess his readers of the same view has brought him into a serious difficulty, which has been exposed by M. Wiesener in his Marie Stuart. At p. 211, vol. viii., Mr. Froude quotes a letter of Randolph to Cecil of Oct. 5th, "in Rolls House," by which he means Record Office, to show that Mary "was deaf to advice as she had been to menace," and "she said she would have no peace till she had Murray's or Chatelherault's head." This letter appears to be visible to nobody but Mr. Froude; and we have the authority of Mr. Joseph Stevenson, who is more at home among the MSS. of the Record Office than Mr. Froude, and who, when he uses them, has the merit of citing them in their integrity, for stating that this letter of the 5th October, referred to by Mr. Froude, is not in the Record Office.[183] But there is a letter there from Randolph to Cecil of the 4th October, in which Randolph represents Mary
"not only uncertain as to what she should do, but inclined to clement measures, and so undecided as to hope that matters could be arranged"!
This does not sound like "deaf to advice," and Mr. Froude can arrange this little difficulty with the dates and Mr. Stevenson at his leisure. Meantime, we all anxiously wait to hear from Mr. Froude where he found his authority for stating that Mary said she would have no peace till she had Murray's or Chatelherault's head.
At page 205, vol. viii. the account given by Mauvissière of his interview with Mary is travestied by Mr. Froude. Mauvissière counselled her to make peace with the insurgents. Mary saw through the device; for it was the counsel of Catherine de' Medici, whose enmity to Mary was only surpassed by that of Elizabeth; and, although without advisers—for Murray was in rebellion, Morton had withdrawn himself, and Maitland was suspected—she rejected it instantly.
It is amusing to observe how the loyal attachment of the citizens and merchants of Edinburgh to Mary annoys Mr. Froude. During Mary's absence, the rebels swept into the city with a large force; but, notwithstanding the appeal of the kirk, the "Calvinist shop-keepers," as Mr. Froude witheringly styles them, would not lift a finger to aid them. We call it amusing, because Mr. Froude everywhere so undisguisedly manifests his strong personal sympathy that, as an historian, he becomes simply absurd.