Democratic Sentinel, Volume 9, Number 31, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 August 1885 — Mary Stuart’s Sins and Prayers. [ARTICLE]

Mary Stuart’s Sins and Prayers.

If Mary, who was born in Scotland, wished to live there, she could not enjoy her wish—for out of the 44 years that she lived she scarcely spent a dozen in her native country, to which she much preferred France, the country of her mother, who was a daughter of the Duke of Guise. In her marriage-treaty with Francis 11. she made Scotland a province of France, and she allowed herself also to be proclamed heir to the throne of England. This claim, which Elizabeth acknowledged by selecting Mary’s son as her successor, was very offensive to the masses of the English people, and was the occasion of many political troubles for Mary. But she was her own worst enemy when she undertook to govern Scotland after the death of her French husband, in 1561—Elizabeth then being firmly established as the English queen. To the long list of works published for and against Mary, a British Jesuit, Rev. J oseph Stevenson, has now added a curious one, "The History of Mary Stuart, by Claude Nau, her Secretary.” This title does not very well describy the book, since the part written be Nau, and discovered by this editor in Sir Robert Cotton’d collections, makes but 100 pages or so, while the introduction and appendix are more than 500. There are matters of some importance in the fragmentary papers of the French secretary, and others quite as valuable in a series of reports from Catholic priests found among the. archives in the Vatican. The editor is bound, as a gcod Catholic, to defend the Catholic Mary as well as he can against the heretic Elizabeth—and he takes the ground that she had nothing to do with the murder of Darnley, although Both well, whom she so disgracefully married, was the murderer. Nau’s account, by hypotheses, was derived from Mary herself, and she discoursed with her secretary in the English castle, where she was imprisoned; if so, we have Mary’s own version of some events in her strange career. Nau says that the Scotch lords, particularly Moray, Morton and Maitland of Lethington, “after having used Botkwell to rid themselves of the King (Darnley), designed to make him their instrument to ruin the Queen. Their plan was to persuade her to marry the Earl of Bothwell, so that they might charge her with being in the plot against her late husband, and a party to his death.” This theory of Darnley’s murder is a very extreme one, and carries with it, if accepted, an entire rejection of the casket letters from Mary to Both well, which Buchanan published in 1571, since these letters show great love from Mary ito Bothwell before Darnley’e murder. One strange circumstance is reported by Nau on the authority of Mary, that she was seriously ill at Lochleven in July, 1567, “the result of miscarriage of twins, her issue by Bothwell,” to whom she had only been married on May 15, of that year, while Darnley had been killed by Bothwell February 9. This fact, if it be one, strengthens the opinion that Mary was guilty with Bpthwell before Darnley’s death, as the casket letters imply. Father Stevenson does not dwell much on these letters, but evidently believes them .forgeries, as Mr. Meline treats them in his spirited vindication of Mary against Froude. But after all, Mary is the worst of all witnesses against .herself—for her whole connection with Bothwell, apart from the letters, is .inconsistent with any theory of her innocence, unless she were a fool—of which, except in love matters, no one accuses her. She was one of the most acute and subtle of women, and must be presumed to have known very well what she \was doing. It is impossible equally rto believe Mary innocent and not to compassionate her—a cieature of so many “graces and virtues,” as she described herself in one of her prayers during her .extreme illness at Jedburgh before the .death .of Darnley. This prayer* ie .attached to a will made by her—or rather a letter of dying request —at the end of which is the long prayer. Rather Stevenson prints it from the original at Edinburgh, where it was first printed .by Mr. Small, the University librarian, in 1881. Mary says therein: O my God, .of Thy infinite goodness Thou hast appointed me (albeit I be unworthy) to rifle .and (govern the people, •which has been-oommitted to my charge, >and to be unto them a lantern and light of good life, .£und for this purpose hast .endued me with .divers graces and virtues, the wiaieh, nevertheless, I have mot used as my duty required. Omy most merciful Creator, I confess that I have not used Thy gifts to the advancement of Thy glory and thonor, and gbod ■example of life to my people that has been committed under my charge, as I ought to have dome, but rather I have offended Thy majesty, not using my eyes as my duty required, for the which eause presently Thou most worthily hast taken from me the power of them. (This last word was eaid because Mary wae then suffering from temporary blindness.) It was not until many years afterward —more than twenty—that ahe suffered death by. the executioner, as did her grandson, Charles 1., sixty-two years after her.