has been traced in gall and wormwood. It is represented to be as illegal in its origin as it was violent and ferocious in its deLet it be remembered that the Parliament so denounced, met in consequence of the solemn treaty which closed the war, and that this formed the first and fundamental condition of the peace. The whole nation was aroused; the struggle had displayed the weakness of their oppressors, and in such a time opinions were not silent on their rights as the citizens of a free state. Expectation beat high as to the issue of a meeting, which was attended by all that could lend it honour by ancient nobility of descent, or inspire confidence by private worth. It had to guide the fury of popular commotion, that it might not sweep away its indiscriminate violence the sound as well as the diseased portions of our institutions and our laws. How it proceeded, let the many statutes directed to the application of practical remedies to practical evils bear witness. There were no speculative experiments, as might have been expected in the storm of a revolutionary change; but each feudal baron, and each honest burgher, in applying himself to a national privilege too long neglected, finished, in a few weeks, a code of laws, which could not be surpassed for sagacious adaptation to the times, by the matured experience of statesmen who had grown grey in legislation.

in

The validity of these statutes were denied by Mary, when she came (as Mr. Turnbull tells us) " to rule her own barbarians:" an act which formed the root of all her sorrows, by unloosening the confidence of her people, has found, of course, a defender in Mr. Tytler. The Parliament, though called in virtue of the treaty, she refused to recognize, or the treaty itself to ratify. "The Queen of Scotland," says Mr. Tytler, "refused to be bound by an agreement to which she was no party,”—(vol. vi., p. 173;) an assertion based on the alleged fact, which has no authority to countenance it, that Mary's commissioners, in agreeing to the treaty, had exceeded their powers. The consequence was, that during the whole of Mary's reign, the statutes establishing the Protestant religion never received the sanction of the Crown, and it was only in the regency of Murray, that they were put beyond legal cavil.

"The three estates," continues the historian, "had assembled of their own authority; [This is erroneous: they met in terms of a solemn treaty,] and by a series of acts, more sweeping than any that had ever passed in the preceding history of the country, had introduced innovations, which it was impossible could be regarded without alarm. [viz., establishing Protestantism.] They had overturned the established religion, and let loose against all who ventured to adhere to the belief of their fathers, the fury of religious persecution; they had entered into a league with another kingdom, and, as if conscious of the illegal nature of their proceedings, had attempted to pro

tect themselves against the punishment of the laws by giving a pretended parliamentary sanction to the most violent of their measures." (Vol. vi., p. 191.)

All this vehement and ridiculous declamation has been resorted to for the purpose of justifying Mary in her refusal to sanction the parliamentary decrees. Never was there in Scottish history a convention of the states which spoke with such cordial feeling the wishes of the people; and never were charges more recklessly and unjustly advanced than those produced against it by Mr. Tytler. With regard to its legality, it would be in vain for us to add a word to the philosophical disquisition of Robertson. It had all the formalities of the greatest and most important parliamentary assemblies that ever met. The Queen, through her commissioners, consented, and only withheld her written concurrence when the object was gained of a cessation of hostilities. It was surely surrounded with far more of legal solemnity than that convention which offered the throne to the Prince of Orange, or that Parliament which, in later times, on the insanity of George the Third, conferred a restricted regency on his son. And with regard to "the fury of religious persecution," which they let loose on all adherents "to the belief of their fathers," the historian, as he too often does, resorted to his own imagination. It is absolutely scandalous, at this era of our history, to have accusations advanced which are in direct contradiction to the statements even of contemporary vilifiers of the Reformers. Lesly, the Bishop of Ross, resigns his tone of complaint and menace, to inform us that the Protestants, fresh from the sight of the martyrdom of their noblest spirits, never spilled one drop of blood, compelled few to become exiles, and fewer were imprisoned. This humanity, he tells us, ought not to be concealed. "Humanitas non est reticenda, quod, eo tempore, paucos Catholicos de religionis re mulctarint exilio, pauciores carcere, morte nullos."

It would be in vain to hunt down every small sneer with which the history of the Protestants at this era is told. To exhibit every little perversion would be to weary readers already acquainted with the subject, and would fail to interest others, without entering into long details. There is, however, one fact which, on account of its tangibility, we may note. The Protestants prepared a Confession of Faith, which was laid before Parliament, and which the Catholic members required time to consider, as it "branched into so many intricate, profound, and important subjects. To these sensible and moderate representations," says Mr. Tytler, “no attention appears to have been paid; the treatise was laid upon the table; the Bishops were called upon to oppugn it upon the instant, and having declined the contest, the consent of the Parliament was given almost by acclamation."-(Vol. vi., p. 184.)

E

There is here a misrepresentation in every line. Instead of being hurried through with all this indecent haste, the Confession was considered at different meetings, and at distant intervals. It was first placed on the table of Parliament, and all the Roman Catholics were "commanded, in God's name, to object, if they could say anything against that doctrine."-(Knox, Historie, p. 272.) What followed? Let Dr. M'Crie tell us :-

"The farther consideration of it was adjourned to a subsequent day, that none might pretend that an undue advantage had been taken of him, or that a matter of such importance had been concluded precipitately. On the 17th of August," (a month and a half after it was first produced,) "the Parliament resumed the subject, and, previous to the vote, the Confession was again read, article by article."(M'Crie's Knox, 5th Ed., p. 203.)

We are anxious to ascertain upon what ground Mr. Tytler can here defend himself.

It is only natural to expect that, while the Protestants are exhibited as the reckless instruments of change and revolution, the Papists shine out as the conservators of peace, the friends of learning and education, mild, intelligent, and moral. Of all unfortunate illustrations, the most ridiculous is that which has been chosen. To fix upon Hamilton, Archbishop of St. Andrews, the most unprincipled and profligate of mankind, for a subject of laudation, appears to be the most Quixotic attempt Mr. Tytler makes against unquestioned history. "He was a prelate," says Mr. Tytler, "whose character partook nothing of cruelty."-(Vol. vi., p. 86.) "He let loose," says Dr. Robertson, "all the rage of persecution against the reformed; sentenced to the flames an aged priest, who had been convicted of embracing the Protestant opinions, and summoned several others, suspected of the same crime, to appear before a synod of the clergy." (Robertson, vol. i., p. 142.) Walter Mill, the aged priest referred to, was condemned to die by Hamilton's own servant, as no secular judge would perform the deed; and yet Mr. Tytler tells us that the prelate was innocent of having instigated it." This pious and holy bishop, whom the historian wishes to rescue from the undeserved infamy of three centuries, was the only man who could be found to urge the scheme of assassinating Mary in Lochleven, with the view of bringing the throne nearer to his own family.-(Vol. vii., p. 141, Tytler.) We cannot understand the chivalrous fight the historian has made in his behalf. With the view of showing his anxiety for the spiritual welfare of the land, Mr. Tytler notices a letter from Hamilton to the Earl of Argyle, filled with reproaches against his heretical opinions, and expressions of sorrow at his lapse; but he tells us nothing of the answer, which refers to matters of too disagreeable a character

for Mr. Tytler's object. The aged earl refused to dismiss his heretical chaplain at the bishop's command, and told the holy priest such truths as these: "He preaches against idolatry I remit to your lordship's conscience if it be heresy or not. He preaches against adultery and fornication;-I refer that to your fordship's conscience. He preaches against hypocrisy;-I refer that to your lordship's conscience." And the letter concludes with an advice to Hamilton to go and do likewise-(Knox, p. 102.)

The thrilling interest of the latter days of "the beauteous Stuart," has completely thrown the story of her early life into the shade; and, in consequence, her defenders have urged her cause not on the sole rational ground on which it ought to rest,the bad education of a profligate court, but have resorted to the coarse expedient of accusing every hostile historian as a forger and a knave. To men not misled by the wild chace of a foolish theory-every moment catching the shadow and losing the substance this style of writing has had its day. The world has become tired of the dull platitudes of declamatory history, which have run from the pen of hundreds, cursed with the scribbling itch of meagre production, with a glib expedition and easy jingle, hiding the truth without touching the intellect by vigorous speculation, or stimulating the fancy by graceful rhetoric.

The education of Mary in France was directed with perverse ingenuity to unfit her for the position to which her destiny called her. She was early instructed in principles of the fiercest intolerance, and the sacred name of religion was employed to varnish deeds at which humanity stands aghast. The intriguing highpriest glosing in the ears of Princes, and the vile ambitious clerical politician, were presented to her unsophisticated mind, as the perfect types of religious teachers. Heresy was gibbeted as the twin sister of treason; and her ambitious uncles ever inculcated it as the unchanging policy of their race, to yield submission to the mandates of the Popedom. At an early age the future Queen of a nation of royalist republicans, was obliged to commit to memory grave discourses, embodying the arbitrary maxims of a despotic government, and her religious and political education only required the moral training of the Court of Catherine de Medicis to complete an instruction destitute of one element of fitness for a Scottish Queen. Amid an eternal round of masquerades, tournaments, and balls, forming the staple business of existence, Mary learnt the morality she was afterwards to practice; and it is a reference to this portion of her history that softens the judgment, on the long line of indiscretions and crimes that marked her unhappy existence.

The ambition of her uncles, the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of Lorrain, was the cause of many miseries, though the latter appears to have loved her with a warm affection, seldom exhibited

by cold-hearted ambitious men. His death affected Mary in her lonely imprisonment in England, more than any of the other calamities which overtook her. All the world had then forsaken her, and the last glimmering hope of rescue expired when the sad news arrived that his stormy life was done.

"God be praised," she says, in a letter to the Archbishop of Glasgow, "God be praised, if he sends me afflictions, he has thus far given me grace to support them. Though I cannot at the first moment command my feelings, or prevent the tears that will flow, yet my long adversity has taught me to hope for consolation for all my afflictions in a better life. Alas! I am a prisoner, and God has bereft me of one of those persons whom I most loved; what shall I say more? He has bereft me at one blow of my father and my uncle. I shall now follow whenever he pleases with less regret." At the close of her letter she adds this touch of nature:- "I beg you will write me a particular account of everything, and if he spoke of me before his death, for that would be a consolation."-(1 Strickland, 213.) Even in little things he was kind to her. "If," she says, "M. the Cardinal of Guise be gone to Lyons, I am sure he will send me a couple of pretty little dogs." (Vol. i., p. 209.)

Such were the men who were the early guides of Mary Stuart -men who were kind to her, but knew nothing of the people she was called to govern.

The Scots are naturally a loyal people. Their attachment to the Stuart race, when human prudence had pronounced their fortunes ended, was testified in the two hopeless rebellions of '15 and '45. It was not the glory of renowned deeds, or gratitude to beneficent kings, that enlisted the people's affections for so poor a race. But the national pride was flattered by the circumstance that they were our native kings, and a generous sympathy buried their errors in their misfortunes. It was with this gallant loyalty that a Protestant people rent the air with shouts of welcome, when their Catholic Sovereign disembarked at Leith, and assuredly human speech was never to her a scoff or a malediction, till patience had become exhausted by her folly or her crimes. Every thing was forgotten in the desire to please, and Mary, during her four first years of prosperity, began to think it possible to live among "les bêtes Ecossais."

In narrating this portion of her history, Mr. Tytler has advanced his theory as to the cause of all her miseries. However honest, he tells us, might be the motives of the Reformers, their conduct was, in the last degree, impolitic and tyrannical. They stood in the Queen's path, in her business, and her amusements; embittered her existence by thwarting her personal feelings and her public schemes, and thus, irritation operating upon a haughty mind, self-confident and self-relying, sent her to an extreme in which honour, liberty, and life were lost.