Chapter VI: The Reformation in Scotland (2)

In his report Father de Gouda alluded to the imminent peril in which the queen stood owing to her complete reliance on her unworthy ministers. Her brother Lord James Stuart, and Maitland, both hostile to the Catholic religion, were her principal advisers. Although the Earl of Huntly had not played a very noble part in the disputes between the regent and the Congregation, he was the recognised head of the Catholic party. He had offered his services to the queen while she was still in France, but at the instigation of her brother she had refused to accept them. After her return to Scotland Huntly found that he was treated with coldness, and the earldom of Moray that belonged to his family was taken from him and conferred on his old rival, Lord James Stuart. During the queen's journey to the north (August 1562) she refused to visit Huntly. A dispute having broken out regarding the execution of one of his followers, who was unwilling to open the gates of a Gordon castle to the queen, Huntly took up arms. He was overthrown and slain at Corrichie by the Earl of Moray (1562). In a Parliament held in May 1563 the Earls of Huntly and Sutherland and eleven nobles of the house of Gordon were attainted, and their goods confiscated. The overthrow of this nobleman, on whom the bishops had counted for support, helped to strengthen the Congregation in Scotland, and to encourage it to persecute more rigorously the followers of the old religion. During the spring of 1563 some of the Catholic clergy seem to have adopted a more forward policy, but they were accused of violation of the law. The primate and close on fifty others were tried before the courts in Edinburgh for celebrating or hearing Mass, and were committed to custody by the queen. To show that she was still Catholic, however, Mary dispatched a letter to the Council of Trent. It was read to the assembled Fathers in May 1563, and it gave entire satisfaction if we may judge by the answer that was prepared. The papal legates were not unwilling that the council should declare sentence of excommunication against Queen Elizabeth, thereby preparing the way for Mary's claims to the throne, but the opposition of the Emperor and of Philip II. of Spain put an end to the scheme.[24]

The question of Mary's marriage was of paramount importance, particularly as it was probable that the issue of the marriage would succeed to the thrones of Scotland and of England. The Pope and the French favoured the Archduke Charles of Austria who was disliked by the Scottish nobles as being too poor; Philip II., more for the purpose of defeating a proposed marriage of the Queen of Scotland to Charles IX. of France, suggested his own son Don Carlos as a probable suitor, but he showed little real earnestness in pushing forward the project, while Elizabeth was inclined to support her own former lover, Dudley, who was created Earl of Leicester, as it is said, to prepare the way for his marriage with the Scottish queen. But Mary, bewildered and annoyed by the varying counsels of her friends, put an end to the intrigues by marrying her cousin Lord Darnley, who as the son of the Earl of Lennox and of Margaret Douglas, granddaughter of Henry VII., had very strong claims on the English and Scottish thrones. A papal dispensation from the impediment of consanguinity was sought, but it would appear that the marriage was solemnised (29th July 1565) before the dispensation was granted.[25] Darnley was a young man of prepossessing appearance, and as a Catholic he was the idol of his co-religionists in England. His marriage with the Queen of Scotland was agreeable to the Pope and to Philip II. of Spain, who hastened to send Mary financial assistance as well as congratulations. Such a union was, as might be expected, distasteful to the Protestant party in England, and particularly distasteful to Elizabeth, who foresaw the disastrous consequences that might ensue to England from the union of two such formidable Catholic claimants to the English throne.

The Earl of Moray and the other reforming lords, realising that the marriage was likely to destroy their influence, determined to take up arms. Encouraged by Elizabeth, the Earls of Moray, Glencairn, the Duke of Châtelherault and others rose in rebellion, nominally in defence of Protestantism but in reality to maintain their own supremacy at court. Mary, displaying more courage than she had displayed hitherto, assembled her forces, overthrew the lords, and forced Moray and his confederates to escape across the borders into England (Oct. 1565). This victory gave new hopes to the Catholics in Scotland. Darnley began to attend Mass openly, as did several of the nobles, while the queen took steps to secure appointments to some of the vacant bishoprics.

But soon a new danger appeared from an unexpected quarter. Darnley was a vain and foolish youth who treated his wife with but scanty respect. He wished to be sovereign of Scotland, to secure the crown for the family of Lennox to the exclusion of the Hamiltons, and to force the queen to follow his counsels in all matters of state. As his wishes were not granted he determined to revenge himself on Mary's secretary, David Riccio, whom he pretended to regard as Mary's secret adviser. For this purpose he turned for assistance to the reformed party whose fears had been aroused by Mary's religious policy. A confederation was formed consisting of Darnley, the Earl of Morton, Lord Ruthven, and Lindsay for the murder of Riccio. The Earl of Lennox Darnley's father, Moray, Argyll, and Maitland of Lethington, the English ambassador, and apparently John Knox, were aware of the design and approved of it.[26] When everything was ready for the opening of Parliament the murderers forced their way into the presence of the queen, and slew her secretary almost in her presence (9 March 1566). On the next day Darnley issued a proclamation ordering those who had assembled for the Parliament to leave Edinburgh, and on the same evening the Earl of Moray arrived in the capital.

The conspirators had agreed to proclaim Darnley king of Scotland. For this purpose the queen was to be held a prisoner or to be slain if she attempted to make her escape, but she succeeded in eluding the vigilance of her captors and in making her way to Dunbar, where she was joined by Archbishop Hamilton, the Earls of Huntly, Atholl, and Bothwell. She advanced on Edinburgh without meeting any resistance, while the murderers of Riccio were obliged to make their escape into England. Darnley deserted his fellow conspirators by communicating to the queen the details of the plot. His desertion did not, however, gain him the dictatorship he desired, as Mary pardoned Moray and Argyll, and received them together with Huntly, Atholl, and Bothwell into her councils. The birth of an heir to the throne would, it was thought, lead to a better understanding between Mary and her husband, but unfortunately it had no result. Though the baptism of the prince was carried out in the chapel-royal of Stirling Castle with all the pomp and splendour of Catholic ceremonial (December 1566) Darnley refused to be present or to take any part in the festivities. A few days later Morton and the other murderers of Riccio were pardoned, and allowed to return to Scotland.

The Earls of Moray and Argyll and the other leading conspirators were incensed against Darnley for having communicated to the queen their share in the plot that led to Riccio's murder. Bothwell, who had done so much to frustrate the conspiracy, detested Darnley almost as fiercely as he himself was detested by both Darnley and the Earl of Lennox. During the latter half of the year 1566 nearly all the great lords of Scotland entered into a confederation or "band" against Darnley. Whether they meant merely to assist the queen to procure a legal separation from her husband with the support and approval of Parliament, or whether they intended to bring about Darnley's death by legal or illegal means is not sufficiently clear.[27]

Soon after the baptism of the prince, Darnley fell ill in Glasgow of small-pox. The queen sent her physician to attend him, went herself to visit him, and when he began to improve had him removed to a lonely house outside Edinburgh, where she frequently spent hours in his company. To all appearances a complete reconciliation had been effected, and Darnley in his letters expressed his entire satisfaction with the kindness and attention of his wife. Suddenly on the night of the 11th February 1567 the house was blown up, and Darnley was killed. Suspicion pointed to Bothwell as the author of the crime, and no doubt the case against him was strong, though how far he was assisted and encouraged by some of the other lords must for ever remain a mystery. Mary's concurrence or implication in the design is not proved by any reliable evidence, and were it not for her subsequent conduct it is not likely that complicity in the murder of her husband would have been laid to her charge. At the privy council on the day following the murder an explanation was drawn up and forwarded to France, declaring that a plot against the lives of the queen, king, and principal nobles had been discovered, and that it was only by a happy accident that the queen's life had been saved.

The Earl of Lennox, Darnley's father, charged Bothwell publicly with the murder of the king and demanded that he should be brought to justice. A day was fixed for the trial, but as Bothwell was powerful in the councils of the queen and was both able and willing to resort to force if force were necessary, it was very difficult to procure evidence against him. Lennox pleaded unsuccessfully for a delay, and as no one was prepared to come forward to prove the charges, Bothwell was acquitted (12th April 1567). A few days later most of the lords who had assembled in Edinburgh for the meeting of Parliament met at Ainslie's tavern and signed an agreement (Ainslie's Band) pledging themselves before God to defend Bothwell who had been declared innocent of the murder, and, stranger still, to procure his marriage with the queen. Various and contradictory lists of the signatories have been published, but from an examination of these different lists it is sufficiently clear that most of the great lords were attached to the confederation.[28] As usually happened when a serious crisis was approaching, Moray was absent from the country.

Bothwell, under pretence of punishing some of the robber bands, mustered his forces, overcame the small guard that accompanied the queen on her journey from Stirling to Edinburgh, and carried off herself and Maitland as prisoners to Dunbar (19 April). That Bothwell acted in collusion with Mary is not proved, but despite the advice of her confessor, of the French representative, and of her best friends Mary agreed to go through a form of marriage with Bothwell. Her new husband was a Protestant, married already to the Earl of Huntly's sister from whom he had obtained a separation. The marriage ceremony was performed by the apostate Bishop of the Orkneys, who was soon to prove as disloyal to his queen as he had proved dishonest towards the Pope. Such a marriage celebrated under such circumstances created a most painful impression amongst the Catholics at home as well as in France and at Rome. It served to confirm their worst suspicions, and made them fear that Mary was about to desert the religion of her fathers. "With this act," wrote the papal ambassador who had been deputed to come to Scotland but who remained at Paris, "so dishonourable to herself, the propriety of sending any sort of envoy ceases unless indeed her Majesty, in order to amend her error and inspired by God, convert the Earl to the Catholic faith."[29]

Many of the lords, who had signed the bond to promote the marriage of Bothwell and Mary, professed to be shocked when they learned that the marriage had taken place. Relying upon the active intervention of Elizabeth they took up arms to avenge the murder of their king. The armies of the queen and of the lords met at Carbery Hill, where after some discussion Mary surrendered herself to the lords, and Bothwell was allowed to make his escape. The queen surrendered on the understanding that she was to be treated as queen, but she soon discovered that her captors intended to deprive her of her kingdom and possibly of her life. As a first step in the proceedings she was removed from Holyrood to Loch Leven (16th June). A document was drawn up embodying her abdication of the Scottish throne in favour of her infant son, and the appointment of her brother the Earl of Moray as regent during the minority. Until Moray's return the government was to be entrusted to a commission consisting of the Duke of Châtelherault, Lennox, Argyll, Atholl, Morton, Glencairn and Moray. Lord Lindsay and Sir Robert Melville were deputed to obtain the queen's signature, which they succeeded in obtaining only by threats and violence (24th July 1567). The young prince was crowned a few days later, John Knox acting as preacher on the occasion, and the apostate Bishop of the Orkneys as the chief minister. Steps were taken to ensure that Mary should not make her escape from imprisonment, and Bothwell who had fled to the Orkneys was forced to escape to Denmark, where he died in 1578. Moray hastened back from France, interviewed the queen at Loch Leven, accepted the office to which he had been appointed, and was proclaimed regent in Scotland. Severe measures were taken against the Catholic clergy many of whom fled from the kingdom. The queen's chapel at Holyrood was destroyed, and care was taken that the young king should be reared in the Protestant religion.

The lords of Scotland had taken up arms to avenge the murder of Darnley, but once they established themselves in power they took no steps to bring the murderers to justice, for the obvious reason that any judicial investigation must necessarily result in establishing their own guilt. Sir James Balfour, who had been involved deeply in the affair, was forgiven, on condition that he should surrender Edinburgh Castle into the hands of the regent. Parliament met in December 1567. It confirmed the abdication of the queen and the appointment of Moray. The laws passed against the Catholic Church in 1560 were renewed. It was enacted furthermore that for the future the kings and rulers of Scotland should swear to uphold the reformed religion and to extirpate heresy. The queen had demanded that she should be allowed to defend herself before Parliament against the attacks of her enemies, but the regent and council refused to comply with her request. Some of her friends, however, endeavoured to uphold her good name, and when they were defeated in Parliament they appealed to the people by publishing a defence of their sovereign.

Though every precaution was taken to ensure the safe-keeping of the queen, she succeeded in escaping from Loch Leven (2 May 1568). She was welcomed at Dunbar by the Primate of Scotland, the Hamiltons, Huntly, Argyll, Seaton, Cassillis, and others, and soon found herself at the head of an army of eight thousand men. She declared that her abdication having been secured by violence was worthless, and that the acts of the recent Parliament were null and void. She called upon all her loyal subjects to flock to her standard. The regent, aware that unless a sudden blow could be struck help would come to Mary from the Catholics of the north as well as from France and Spain, determined to take the field at once. The armies met at Langside, near Glasgow (13th May), where the forces of the queen were overthrown. Mary accompanied by a few faithful followers made her way south towards Galloway, and at last against the advice of her best friends she determined to cross the border to throw herself on the protection of the Queen of England.

The arrival of Mary in England created a great difficulty for Elizabeth. If she were allowed to escape to France, both France and Spain might join hands to enforce her claims to the English succession, and if she were restored to the throne of Scotland, Moray and his friends could expect no mercy. It was determined, therefore, that Elizabeth should act as umpire between the queen and her rebellious subjects, so that by inducing both sides to submit their grievances to Elizabeth feeling between them might be embittered, and that in the meantime a divided Scotland might be kept in bondage. In her reply to the letter received from the Queen of Scotland Elizabeth informed her that she could not be received at court nor could any help be given to her unless she had cleared herself of the charges brought against her. Both parties in Scotland were commanded to cease hostilities, but at the same time Cecil took care to inform Moray secretly that he should take steps to enforce his authority throughout Scotland.[30]

Mary, while repudiating Elizabeth's right to sit in judgment on her conduct, consented that a conference should be held between her commissioners and those appointed by Elizabeth and by the rebel lords. The Dukes of Norfolk, Sussex, and Sir Ralph Sadler were the English commissioners; Bishop Leslie, Lord Livingstone, and Lord Herries represented Mary; while Moray, Morton, and Maitland of Lethington appeared to present the case of the rebel lords. The conference opened at York (October 1568). Several days were wasted in attempts made by Maitland to effect a compromise so that the production of charges and counter-charges might be unnecessary, and in considering inquiries put forward by the Earl of Moray regarding Elizabeth's attitude in case the charges against the Scottish queen were proved. Some of the letters supposed to have been written by Mary to Bothwell were shown secretly to the English commissioners, but they do not seem to have produced any great effect on the Duke of Norfolk or even on the Duke of Sussex who was certainly not prejudiced in Mary's favour. The latter reported that Moray could produce no proofs except certain letters the authorship of which the Queen of Scots would deny. In fact, Sussex believed that were the affair to come to trial it would go hard with the queen's accusers.[31] In a short time Elizabeth ordered that the venue should be changed from York to London, and Mary, believing that she would be allowed an opportunity to defend herself before the peers and representatives of foreign governments, accepted the change. She sent Bishop Leslie and Lord Herries to represent her in London, but on their arrival they found that Mary would not be allowed to appear in person, though her accusers were received by the queen, nor would the foreign ambassadors be admitted to hear the evidence.

The new commission opened at Westminster (4th Dec. 1568). The lords brought forward their charges against the queen accusing her of complicity in the murder of her husband. In proof of this they produced a number of letters that were supposed to have been contained in a casket left behind him by Bothwell in Edinburgh, when he fled from that city in June 1567. This casket contained eight letters and some sonnets, which, if really written by Mary, proved beyond doubt that she was hand in glove with Bothwell in bringing about the murder of Darnley. The Casket Letters considered in the light of her own conduct furnished damaging evidence of Mary's guilt. Whether these letters were genuine or forged is never likely to be established with certainty,[32] but considering the character of Mary's opponents, their well-known genius for duplicity, the contradictory statements put forward by their witnesses and the indecent haste with which the whole enquiry was brought to a close, it is difficult to believe that the evidence of Mary's authorship was convincing. The commissioners acting on Mary's behalf laboured under grave disadvantages from the fact that their mistress was not at hand for consultation. As a consequence they made many mistakes in their pleadings, but they were on sure ground when they demanded that copies of the incriminating letters should be forwarded to Mary for examination. This demand, though supported by the French ambassador, was refused, and Mary was never allowed an opportunity to reply to the main charge brought against her. An offer was made that proceedings should be dropped if Mary would consent to resign the throne of Scotland in favour of her son, and when she refused this offer the conference was brought to a sudden termination. Moray and his friends were informed that "nothing had been produced against them as yet that might impair their honour and allegiance; and on the other part there had been nothing sufficiently produced or shown by them against the queen their sovereign, whereby the Queen of England should conceive or take any evil opinion of the queen her good sister for anything yet seen" (Jan. 1569).[33] The Earl of Moray and his companions were allowed to return to Scotland, and nothing more was done either to establish the innocence or the guilt of the Queen of Scotland. The object of Elizabeth and her advisers had been attained. They had blackened the character of Mary; they had driven a wedge between herself and her nobles, and had allowed Moray to return to Scotland to rule as an English dependent.

To prevent Queen Mary from falling into the hands of the Catholic lords of the north she was removed from Tutbury to Coventry (26th January 1569). Whatever might be said of Mary's conduct during her early years in Scotland, or whatever doubt might have been entertained about her orthodoxy by the Pope and by the Catholic powers of the Continent, everything unfavourable to her was forgotten by them in their sympathy for her sufferings, and in their admiration for her fortitude and sincere attachment to her religion. Pius V. and Philip II. were as deeply interested in her fate as were the Catholics of Scotland and of England. A scheme was arranged to promote her marriage to the Duke of Norfolk and to secure her succession to the English throne, but Elizabeth anticipated the design by imprisoning the Duke, suppressing the rebellion of the northern lords (1569), and by braving the terrors of the papal excommunication levelled against her the following year.

When later on a new plot was discovered with the same object in view Norfolk was put to death (1572). While Mary was alive in England she was a source of constant danger to Elizabeth's throne. English Catholics driven to desperation by the penal laws were certain to turn to her as their lawful sovereign, while the Catholic nations on the Continent could fall back on the imprisoned queen whenever they chose to stir up disorder, or possibly to attempt an invasion. Dangerous as she was in prison, she might be still more dangerous if she were free to effect her escape either to Scotland or to France. In her death lay Elizabeth's best hope of peace, and as the rigour of her confinement failed to kill her, an attempt was made to induce the Scots to undertake a work that the English feared to undertake.[34] At last an opportunity was given of bringing about her execution and of covering the measure with an appearance of legality. A scheme for her release was undertaken by Babington,[35] with every detail of which the spies of Cecil were intimately acquainted, if they did not actually help to arrange them. Babington's letters to Mary and her replies were betrayed and copied. It is certain that Mary knew what was intended, but there is no evidence to show that she approved of the murder of Elizabeth. When the proper time came Babington and his accomplices were arrested and put to death (October 1586), and Mary's fate was submitted to the decision of Parliament. Both houses petitioned that the Queen of Scotland should be executed, but Elizabeth, fearful of the consequences and hoping that Mary's jailer Paulet, would relieve her of the responsibility, hesitated to sign the death warrant. At last, however, she overcame her scruples, and on the 8th February 1587, Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded at Fotheringay. Her attitude to the last was worthy of praise. She died a martyr for her religion, and by her death she expiated fully the imprudences and waverings of her youth. Elizabeth pretended to be horrified by the action of her ministers. Her secretary was imprisoned and fined to prove to Scotland, France, and Spain that the Queen of England had no responsibility for the tragedy of Fotheringay.

Meanwhile how fared it with Catholicism in Scotland? The Regent Moray returned from England early in 1569. Acting on the repeated requests of the General Assembly he undertook new measures against the Catholic Church. Catholic officials and professors were removed from Aberdeen University; several priests were arrested and punished though the regent was unwilling to inflict the death penalty, and many distinguished clerics and laymen, including the Primate and Bishop Leslie, were outlawed and their goods confiscated. The regent was not destined however to enjoy long the fruits of his treachery against his sister. In 1570, at the very time when he was plotting with the English government to get the Queen of Scotland into his power, he was shot in Linlithgow by one of the Hamiltons, the hereditary enemies of his house.

On his death there were two strong parties in Scotland. The majority of the nobles, including the Duke of Châtelherault, Argyll, Huntly, Atholl, and even Kirkcaldy and Maitland of Lethington, two former supporters of Moray, ranged themselves on the side of their imprisoned queen, and might have succeeded in re-establishing her authority had not Elizabeth espoused the cause of Morton, Mar, Glencairn and Ruthven, backed as these were by Knox and the preachers. Two English armies were dispatched into Scotland, and with the help of the English forces the Earl of Lennox, Darnley's father, was appointed regent (July 1570). It was not the first time that he had sought to destroy the independence of his country by invoking the assistance of the English, and as he had gone over to Protestantism he was determined to throw himself into the arms of the Reformers. The castle of Dunbarton was still in the possession of the queen's supporters. He laid siege to it, and captured it in April 1571. Here he seized the Primate of Scotland, and had him put to death after a summary trial. The chapter met and elected Robert Hay, but he was never consecrated, and for more than three hundred years St. Andrew's was without a Catholic bishop. In September 1571 Lennox was slain, and the Earl of Mar was elected regent. During his short reign he was unable to enforce his authority in the country. Negotiations were opened with him by Cecil's agents to induce him to undertake the execution of the Queen of Scotland, who was to be sent back from England for the purpose, but his sudden death in 1572 put an end to the scheme.

He was succeeded by the Earl of Morton, another of Elizabeth's agents. At first Morton was not unfavourable to the Catholics owing to the disputes that arose between himself and the preachers about the re-establishment of the episcopal form of government, but later on he adopted a policy of violent opposition to the old religion. Some of the priests were put to death; others were arrested or banished; a list of Catholics including Beaton the Archbishop of Glasgow, Leslie Bishop of Ross, and Chisholm Bishop of Dunblane was drawn up for proscription, and steps were taken to suppress Catholic holidays and to remove from the churches everything that called to mind Catholic devotions.

In 1578 the young king demanded Morton's resignation. A council of twelve was appointed in his place, at the head of which stood the Earls of Argyll and Atholl. Elizabeth was annoyed at the fall of her minion, and took no pains to conceal her annoyance from the young king. It looked as if friendly relations between the two courts might be broken, and the Catholic party both at home and on the Continent were filled with new hopes. In 1579 Esmé Stuart, Lord d'Aubigny, a nephew of the former Earl of Lennox, arrived from France, where he had been educated as a Catholic. He was welcomed at court by the king and created Earl of Lennox. James fell completely under his sway, though the preachers regarded d'Aubigny as a Catholic spy. Regardless of Elizabeth's friendship, James was induced to open communications with his mother, and when the Earl of Morton rose in rebellion against such a policy he was arrested and put to death (1582). Though apparently Lennox made profession of accepting the established religion in Scotland, he was endeavouring secretly to bring about an understanding between Mary and her son, to secure the release of the former from captivity, and to assist the Catholic cause. The preachers took alarm at the sudden and unexpected increase of Popery. "Before this French court came to Scotland," said Walter Belcanqual in one of his sermons in 1580 "there were either few or none that durst avow themselves Papists, neither yet publicly in the country, neither in the reformed cities, neither in the king's palace. But since that time, not only begin the Papists within the realm to lift up their heads, but also our Scottish Papists that were outside the realm swarm home from all places like locusts, and have taken such hardihood unto them that not only have they access to the French court, but also in the king's palace, in the particular sessions of our kirks, and general assemblies thereof, durst plainly avow their Papistry, and impugn the truth, both against the laws of the realm and discipline of the Church, contrary to all practice that we have had before."[36]

The members of the General Assembly, annoyed at the attempt of the king to support the episcopal system of government, were determined to remove Lennox, whom they regarded as an emissary of Rome. Elizabeth's agents, too, were busy stirring up discontent. A plot formed by Ruthven Earl of Gowrie, the Earl of Mar, and others, for the capture of the king, was carried out successfully during a visit paid by James to Ruthven's castle at Gowrie (The Gowrie Plot). He was seized and lodged safely in Stirling. The Earl of Arran who attempted to rescue his sovereign was made prisoner, and Lennox was obliged to flee to France (1582).

For a time Melville and the preachers, who gloried in Gowrie's successful machinations, held the king in bondage. The General Assembly of 1582 expressed its approval of what had been done,[37] and renewed its attacks upon the episcopal system. James, however, succeeded in making his escape from confinement; the Earl of Arran was recalled to court; Ruthven was declared a traitor and was beheaded, and the other conspirators were obliged to make their escape to England. James entered into close correspondence with some of the Catholic powers abroad, and even went so far as to appeal to the Pope for assistance against the enemies who surrounded him (1584). For a time it seemed as if a great Catholic reaction was about to set in. Priests who had escaped from England were labouring with success in the Scottish mission-fields; a few Jesuits had arrived from the Continent, and France, Spain, and the Pope were in correspondence regarding the assistance that might be given to James and his mother. But the spies of Elizabeth soon obtained knowledge of what was in contemplation. France and Spain were too jealous of one another to undertake an armed expedition, without which success was impossible. Negotiations were opened up with a view of detaching James from the Catholic party, and of inspiring him with distrust for his mother. As he was always more anxious to secure his accession to the English throne than to defend either his mother's life or her religion, he succumbed completely to English influence.

Not even the execution of his mother in 1587 was sufficient to rouse him to take serious action. Though he was urged by many of the Scottish nobles to declare war he contented himself with angry speeches and protests that passed unheeded. Even many of the Presbyterian lords were ready to support him had he declared war, and Catholic noblemen like the Earls of Huntly, Erroll, and Crawford, Lord Maxwell, and Lord Hamilton, offered their assistance. It was well- known, too, that Philip II. was preparing at the time for an invasion of England. Had Scotland declared war the results might have been disastrous for England, but James, instead of taking the offensive, accepted a pension from Elizabeth and offered to assist in the defence of the kingdom. He endeavoured at first to conciliate the Catholic party by restoring John Leslie Bishop of Ross, who had been for years a most zealous defender of Mary Queen of Scots, to his See and his possessions, and by appointing the exiled Archbishop of Glasgow to be his ambassador at the French court. The General Assemblies, however, backed up by Elizabeth forced him to take strong measures against the adherents of the old religion. In 1593 a proclamation was issued ordering all Jesuits and seminary priests to leave Edinburgh within two hours under pain of death, and a violent campaign was begun in nearly every part of Scotland against the Catholic nobles and clergy. The Catholic lords who were in close communication with Spain were forced to take up arms. Their forces were mustered under the Earls of Huntly and Erroll, and gained a complete victory at Glenlivet over the Earl of Argyll who was dispatched against them. When the news of this defeat reached the king at Dundee he displayed unwonted activity. He assembled a large army to punish his rebellious subjects, and the Catholic lords were at last forced to make their escape from the country. With the flight of Huntly and Erroll (1595) and the dispersal of their troops the triumph of Protestantism in Scotland was assured.

The great leader in the attack on the Catholic Church in Scotland was John Knox who belonged to the Geneva school, and who worked hard for the introduction of the Calvinist system of Church government. The state of affairs in Scotland at the time was very favourable to his designs. Obviously there could be no question of royal supremacy or of a State Church being established after the English model, since the Queen of Scotland was a staunch supporter of the Roman Church. Neither could the principle of parliamentary control be accepted since the Scottish Parliament was comparatively powerless. Had the revenues and possessions of the Scottish bishoprics and ecclesiastical benefices been left untouched the democratic form of government would have been impossible, but as the hungry lords of Scotland had appropriated already the wealth of the Church they had no special interest in the ecclesiastical appointments. The result was that the General Assemblies, composed of both preachers and laymen, became the recognised governing body of the new religion, and they arrogated to themselves full control of ecclesiastical affairs. The bishops who were willing to conform were not, however, removed from office. They were subjected to the control of the General Assembly, and were placed on the same level as the recently named superintendents.

But the regents who governed Scotland during the minority of James VI. were not inclined to receive with favour the idea of ecclesiastical independence. In 1571 the Earl of Mar insisted on appointing an archbishop to St. Andrew's without reference to the General Assembly, and immediately the preachers were up in arms. They were handicapped in their resistance by the fact that their great leader Knox was too ill to afford them much assistance, and at last they were forced to accept a compromise according to which the old system of ecclesiastical government was left practically untouched. Archbishops, bishops, deans and chapters were retained; the bishops were to be elected by the chapters with the permission and approval of the king and were to receive the temporalities by royal grant; and all persons admitted to benefices were to promise obedience to their bishops. At the same time it was agreed that the bishops should be subject to the General Assemblies in spiritual matters, as they were subject to the king in temporals. It was hoped that by means of this compromise peace might be secured, but in a short time the attack on episcopal government was renewed with still greater vigour. A new leader had appeared in the person of Andrew Melville, the Principal of the College of Glasgow, and the friend of the great Swiss Reformer, Beza. Despite the fact that the regent espoused the cause of episcopacy the General Assemblies were determined to continue the struggle for its overthrow. The adoption in 1580 of the /Second Book of Discipline/, involving as it did the overthrow of episcopal authority, the rejection of state interference and the assertion that spiritual authority was derived only from the people, was a severe blow to the young king and his advisers; but they found some consolation in the fact that the Scottish Parliament re-asserted the principle of royal supremacy and recognised the authority of the bishops (1584).

A form of declaration was drawn up which all preachers were required to sign under threat of dismissal. During the years 1585 and 1586 serious attempts were made by the government to reduce them to subjection, but without any important result. In fact, at the suggestion of Melville, the General Assembly pronounced sentence of excommunication against Archbishop Adamson (1586), and the archbishop was obliged to submit himself to the judgment of that body. From that time things went from bad to worse till in 1592 Parliament gave its formal sanction to Presbyterianism, though the /Second Book of Discipline/ was not approved, nor were the bishops deprived of their civil positions. Hardly had James been seated on the English throne than he determined to make another effort to force episcopacy and royal supremacy on the Scottish Church. He appointed several new bishops to the vacant Sees (1603). As the preachers still offered a strong opposition Melville was invited to a conference at Hampton Court (1606) where a warm debate took place between the representatives of the Presbyterians and their opponents. Melville and his friends refused to yield, and when the former was summoned to appear before the privy council to answer for certain verses he had composed, he seized the Archbishop of Canterbury by the sleeves of his rochet, denounced him as an enemy of the gospel truth, and assured him that he would oppose his schemes to the last drop of blood. He was arrested and thrown into prison. Parliament supported the king (1609); a High Commission Court was established in 1610 to deal with the preachers, and in the same year the nominees of James were consecrated by English prelates. But despite the efforts of James and of his successor Charles I., Presbyterianism still continued to flourish in Scotland.

Though the flight of the Earls of Huntly and Erroll (1595) had assured the triumph of Presbyterianism many of the people of Scotland, particularly of those in the north, still remained devoted to the old religion. The Jesuit Fathers had been untiring in their efforts, and the labours of men like Fathers Creighton, Hay, Gordon, and Abercromby were far from being unfruitful. Still the ecclesiastical organisation had broken down; the supply of priests was likely to become exhausted, and, unless some attempt was made to maintain unity and authority, as well as provide means of education for clerical students, there was grave danger that Catholicism might soon be extinguished. In 1598 George Blackwell received faculties as archpriest or superior of the Scotch mission, and was provided with a number of consultors to assist him in his difficult task. A Scotch college was established at Rome by Clement VIII. to supply Scotland with priests (1600). Another college of a similar kind was founded at Tournai in 1576 by Dr. James Cheyne. Later on it was removed to Pont-à-Mousson and placed under the control of the Jesuits, and finally it was brought to Douay. The old Irish foundations at Würzburg and Regensburg were taken over by the Scotch, and utilised for the education of priests. Scottish colleges were also established at Paris and at Madrid (transferred to Valladolid).

The Catholics of Scotland expected some toleration from James I., but they were doomed to disappointment. The king was unable and unwilling to put an end to the violent persecution carried on by the kirk, which aimed at wiping out every trace of Catholicity by directing its attackings against the Catholic nobility of the north and against the Jesuits, one of whom, Father Ogilvie was put to death (1516). Similarly under Charles I. the persecution continued unabated, but, notwithstanding all the penalties levelled against the clergy, many priests were found willing and ready to help their co-religionists in Scotland. Jesuits, Benedictines, Franciscans from Ireland, Capuchins, and Vincentians[38] vied with each other in their efforts to confirm the faith of those who remained true and to win back those who had fallen away. During the Protectorate the Catholics could hope for no mercy, nor did the accession of Charles II. make much change in their sad condition. Under James II. they enjoyed a brief spell of liberty. The chapel at Holyrood was opened once again, and some provision was made from the private resources of the king for the support of the missions, and of the foreign colleges.

But the favour of James II. led to still greater persecutions once he had been overthrown to make way for William of Orange. During the reigns of William and Mary, of Anne and of George I. the position of the Scotch Catholics was even worse than that of their brethren in England or Ireland. In his anxiety to encourage both the priests and the laity Innocent XII. appointed Bishop Thomas Nicholson as vicar- apostolic of Scotland in 1694, and, as it was impossible for him to give sufficient attention to the districts in the north and west where Catholics were still fairly numerous, Dr. Hugh MacDonald was appointed vicar-apostolic of the Highlands in 1726. When the Pretender arrived in Scotland the Catholics flocked to his standard, and when he was defeated at Culloden (1746) they were obliged to pay a heavy penalty for their loyalty to the old rulers. The Highland clans were either cut up in battle or deported; the Catholic chapels were closed, and so violent was the persecution that ensued that it seemed as if the wishes of the kirk were about to be realised. But events soon showed that those who imagined they had seen the extinction of Catholicism in Scotland were doomed to disappointment. ----------

[1] Theiner, /Vet. Mon. Scot./, 8.

[2] Id., 465-68.

[3] Robertson, /Concilia Scotiae (1225-1559)/, cclxx.-cclxxxv.

[4] Pollen, /Papal Negotiations/, etc., 525-30.

[5] Forneron, /Les ducs de Guise et lour époque/, 1877.

[6] Herkless, /Cardinal Beaton/, 263 sqq.

[7] Id., 289-301.

[8] /Cambridge Modern History/, ii., 556.

[9] Robertson, /Concilia Scotiae/.

[10] Law, /Archbishop Hamilton's Catechism/, 1884.

[11] Pollen, op. cit., xxv., xxiv.-vi.

[12] For a reliable account of Knox, cf. Lang, /John Knox and the
Reformation/, 1905.

[13] Grub, /Ecc. Hist. of Scotland/, ii., 45-6.

[14] Bellesheim, i., 389.

[15] Grub, op. cit., ii., 53-54.

[16] Wilkins, /Concilia/, iv., 204 sqq.

[17] Published in 1558. Dedicated to the writer's nephew, "Gilbert
Maister of Cassillis."

[18] Pollen, op. cit., xxxii. sqq.

[19] Pollen, op. cit., 56.

[20] Bellesheim, op. cit., i., 424-32.

[21] Grub, op. cit., ii., 89 sqq.

[22] Pollen, op. cit., xlix. sqq.

[23] On the mission of Gouda, cf. Pollen, op. cit., liv.

[24] Pollen, op. cit., 162-76.

[25] Pollen, op. cit., lxxxv.-xcviii.

[26] Lang, /The Mystery of Mary Stuart/, 54-9.

[27] Lang, /The Mystery of Mary Stuart/, 74 sqq.

[28] Lang, op. cit., 148 sqq.

[29] Pollen, op. cit., 293, cxxvi.-xxxiii.

[30] /Political History of England/, vi., 272.

[31] Rait, /Mary Queen of Scots/, 145.

[32] Cf. Hosack, /Mary Stuart and her Accusers/, 2 vols., 1870-4.
Henderson, /Casket Letters/, 2nd edition, 1890. Id., /Mary Queen
of Scots/, 2 vols., 1905. Fleming, /Mary Queen of Scots/, 2 vols.,
1897-8. Nau-Stephenson, /History of Mary Stuart/, 1883. Lang,
/Mystery of Mary Stuart/, 1904.

[33] Lang, /The Mystery of Mary Stuart/, 160-1.

[34] Bellesheim, ii., 129.

[35] Pollen, /Mary Stuart and the Babington Plot/ (/Month/, 1907).

[36] Grub, op. cit., ii., 210.

[37] Grub, op. cit., ii., 229.

[38] Bellesheim, op. cit., 283-98.