Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

of neighbouring countries. On several occasions the superiority of England, and the ancient vassalage of Scotland, were thrown into the scale, as vesting a sort of jurisdiction over Scottish affairs in Elizabeth, absurdly, after a forbearance of nearly 300 years, even if the claim had ever been satisfactorily established.

Mary, immediately on her landing, despatched Herries, her friend through every change of fortune, to desire that she might be forthwith admitted to the presence of the queen, and that succour might be granted to restore her, and to suppress the rebellion ; expectations naturally excited by Elizabeth's affectionate treatment since her imprisonment at Lochleven. The queen answered, that she was heartily sorry that she could not assent to her sister's present coming: that as long as the imputation of a share in the murder of Darnley lay on Mary, and while the circumstances of the marriage with Bothwell were unexplained, Elizabeth could not with honour seem to treat so lightly the violent death of lord Darnley, her natural-born subject and nearest kinsman: that if the queen of Scots could devise any means of removing the imputation of such crimes, Elizabeth would receive her with open arms, restore her to the throne, and chastise her rebellious subjects; and in the mean time entertain her with all the honour due to a queen. Lord Herries replied, that though his mistress was impatient to be received by her sister, yet he was instructed by his queen to say, that if her majesty thought the interview for the present unmeet, his mistress would intrust the whole cause to the arbitrament of her sister. Elizabeth said, that she disclaimed all intention to adopt the forms of judgment against an independent sovereign; that her great object was to vindicate the innocence and re-establish the authority of Mary, or, in the worst event, if the assertion of Mary's honour should not be so clear as were to be wished, to compound all difficulties without bloodshed. An agreement was entered into accordingly. Elizabeth sent an agent to stop Moray's hostilities against Huntly

and Argyle, which saved these noblemen from destruction. Herries, a few days after, seemed loath to admit an enquiry in which the Scottish revolters were to be heard. After much conference between him and her majesty, in the presence of the council, he at last consented to her terms. Shortly after he faltered and scrupled, so that the conference was countermanded. He proposed that the kings of France and Spain should bind themselves to send no troops into Scotland, if Mary were suffered to go. But it being found that he had no authority to make this proposal, the council declined the consideration of it. About the 15th of July he

was,

appears to have consented to the original proposition of an enquiry by commissioners.* About the 28th of July, at Bolton Castle, to which residence Mary had been removed, Herries repeated to her, as well as to lord Scroop and sir Francis Knolles, frequently and solemnly, the message brought by him to his mistress, when he returned from London "that if which ; Mary would commit her cause to be heard by her highness's order, not to make her highness judge over her, but rather as committing herself to the counsel of her dear cousin and friend, her highness would send for the noblemen of Scotland that they might answer before such noblemen of England as should be chosen by her, why they had deposed their queen: that if they could assign some reason (which her highness thought they could not), she might restore the queen of Scots to her regal seat, on condition that the lords and all her other subjects should continue in their honours, states, and dignities; but if they assigned no reason, her highness would replace the queen absolutely on her throne by force of arms, if they should resist; in which case her highness would expect the queen to renounce all claims to England during her highness's life, and the lives of her progeny, to convert the alliance with France into a league with England, and to substitute the English Book

The above account is abridged from a paper corrected and interlined by Cecil, in the Cotton. Library, Calig. c. 1., and printed in Anderson's Col lections, iv. 7. Calig. c. 1. Anderson, iv. 109.

+ Knollys to Cecil. Bolton, 28th July.

of Common Prayer for the mass-book in the Scottish churches. At first she made some scruple; but, after further conference, she said she would submit her cause to her highness in thankful wise accordingly. At the same time it appeared that Herries, full as his heart was of truth and loyalty to Mary, did not mislike that she should be bridled in her government by the adjunction of some noblemen of her realm; "in consideration of her rashness and foul marriage with Bothwell, whom he would have prosecuted to death." In the interpretation and recollection of conversations which required language of so much delicacy, mis-statements at a subsequent time were altogether unavoidable. It will not, perhaps, appear to a careful and impartial reader that, in this case, either party had yet materially departed from their original overtures. The conditions proposed by Elizabeth continued to be, in the main, one and the same, from Cecil's first draught of advice to the subsequent conferences at York and Westminster. The fluctuations in Mary's language were not more than was unavoidable, amidst the violent struggles of her pride with her prudence. It was the noble care of Herries to guard the dignity of his fallen sovereign, by keeping aloof from judicial forms and pretences to jurisdiction, which, he thought, reasonably, if that had been the sole object, would be best effected by committing the discussion of Scottish affairs to the issue of a personal and friendly interview between the royal kinswomen. The English statesman leant to more rigour than was at that time acceptable to Elizabeth; and the privy council ascribed more to the varying shades of Mary's language than an equitable judge, who made due allowance for her circumstances and situation, would have approved. On the 20th of June the council had unanimously passed several resolutions respecting this great question, which contained their advice to her majesty, and were accordingly laid before her. They declared, that in their opinion the queen's majesty could not with honour or with safety release the queen of Scots, much less help her

restoration to the throne, till, after a fair hearing of both parties, she should be absolved from the heinous crime charged upon her. The restitution of Mary to the dignity without the power of a queen seemed to the lords so subtle and complicated a scheme, so defective in securities against the most imminent perils, so likely to wound the pride and indignation of Mary, and to kindle her desire of revenge by arming it with some new weapons, that the council rejected it as altogether unmeet. They recommended that an account of all that had occurred, particularly of Mary's disposition to shrink from an enquiry which she had at first courted, should be communicated to the kings of France and Spain.

Few great transactions can be so fully estimated from the original documents as the detention of the queen of Scots in England. The documents themselves are eminently worthy of trust. They are the work of a statesman who was accustomed to write dissertations on public measures, and to examine them with a logical analysis, which almost compels a writer to fill up, according to the rules of method, every separate question presented by the subject which he handles. They much more resemble the writings of a political philosopher than the compositions of statesmen and diplomatists; which are generally coloured with a mere temporary purpose, and studiously avoid that rigorous order which renders too prominent the omission of topics inconvenient to be urged. In none of these state papers do we find that silence on some subjects, those mere allusions to others, that very partial disclosure of a third sort, which, though not unreasonable in diplomatic correspondence, where it is an object to avoid what might imprudently pledge one party, or needlessly offend another, yet are so often used for deception, as to be always liable to suspicions of a sinister purpose. From such suspicions the very pedantry of Cecil guards him, by compelling him to write with a sort of excess of good faith. The fulness and plainness of them imply a deep respect for the understanding of Elizabeth: naked reason is laid before her, without any attempts to conceal what might be

obnoxious, or to soften what was harsh, without flattering her vanity or inflaming her passions. This treatment implied undoubtedly the highest commendation which can be bestowed upon a sovereign. But it never could be adopted for a personal purpose. It is flattering only to the wise. It would be displeasing to inferior minds. Whenever it is successful, it is with princes who are inaccessible to adulation. The whole tone of the documents contradicts opinions which have arisen in later times. It is evident from them that all public measures originated with her sagacious counsellors, and that, though adopted by her wisdom, they were little influenced by her private passions and personal defects; excepting, indeed, those which relate to marriage, or to the inheritance of the crown and the pretensions to the succession.*

* About 250 years after Mary had crossed the Solway, another case of exception from ordinary rules arose in England, opposite to hers in moral circumstances, yet resembling it in the dry skeleton of legal theory.

Napoleon Bonaparte, probably the most extraordinary man who has ap peared in the world since Julius Cæsar, whom he surpassed in genius for war as much as he and all other warriors must yield to the great dictator in the arts and attainments of peace, having raised himself to the sovereignty of Europe by his commanding faculties, when he was hurled from that eminence by his insolent contempt for mankind, sought for refuge in the ships and territories of the only nation who had successfully defied his power. When he applied with that view to the commander of a British ship of war, he was answered, as Mary had been by the governor of Carlisle, that an officer had no authority to promise more than an hospitable reception in his own ship. The course of events obliged Mary to rush into shelter before the answer of Mr. Lowther arrived. Napoleon was compelled to take refuge in the ship before any answer could be obtained from a competent authority. Both affected to act voluntarily, though they were alike driven by necessity to the first open asylum. Neither of them was born an English subject, nor had committed any offence within the jurisdiction of England: consequently, neither of them was amenable to English law. Neither of them could be justly considered as at war with England; though, on that part of the subject, some technical but unsubstantial obstacles might be opposed to Napoleon, which could not be urged against Mary. The imprisonment of neither was conformable to the law of England or the law of nations. But the liberty of Mary was deemed to be at variance with the safety of the English government; as the enlargement of Napoleon was thought to be with the independence of nations, and with the repose for which Europe sighed after long bloodshed. The imprisonment, though in neither case warranted by the rules of municipal or international law, was in both justified by that necessity from which these rules have sprung, and without which no violence can rightfully be done to a human being.

Agreeably to this view of the matter, the detention of Napoleon was legalised by an act of the British parliament. By the bare passing of such act it was tacitly assumed, that the antecedent detention was without warrant of law. This evident truth is more fully admitted by the language o the statute, which, in assigning the reason for passing it, alleges, that "it is necessary for the preservation of the tranquillity of Europe, and for the general safety, that Napoleon Bonaparte should be detained and kept in custody:" and it is still more explicitly declared, by a specific enactment *56 Geo. 3. cap. 22. A. D. 1816.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »