ARELIC FOR SCOTLAND

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 225, 17 June 1919, Page 6

ARELIC FOR SCOTLAND

QUEEN MARY'S LETTER. Sir,—Tlmt Mr; Howard Elliott should dictate to the curators ot' tho Hoyal Scottish Museum how they should deal with Queen .Mary's letter is uot at all surprising in tho light of the presumption which marks his conduct, but I should say that it is going 'too iar even for him to imply that the authorities oi the Hoyal Scottish Museum are not conversant with the history of the unfortunate Queen Mary and her contemporary Sovereigns. Mr. 'Elliott asserts that the statement made by the Queen of Scots was not borue out by historic facts. Let mo here quote from the standard history taught in our schools, and let your readers judge for. themselves:—

"When tho Government (English) determined to act against Queen Mary they were not very scrupulous in. the uoiiesty of t'heir dealings. A trap was laid to entangle her in a treasonable correspondence. Mary was tried by a Special Commission and found guilty."

While I will readily concede that Mary Stuart was by no means a paragon of womanly virtue, I do not hesitate to affirm that she was no worse, and possibly not quite so utterly objectionable as was tier cousin and contemporary Elizabeth Tudor, "England's Protestant Queen"! Surely Mr. Elliott is determined to make "Protestant" a term of opprobrium. He deplores the inadequate teaching of history in ijchools." May I remind him that history to be of any value must be read by men of open minds who can form dispassionate judgments, not by hopelessly bigoted partisans? Presumably Mr. Elliott aiid I read the same standard histories, but our deductions from the same historical facts are widely divergent. He tells us that David Rizzio w»a low born. I find no evidence in history to support this statement. While, on the other hand, if what is high and low is to be determined by the moral standard the antecedents of ".England's Protestant Queen" would sutler grievously from investigation. Henry Tudor had the combined vices of Nero, Caligula, and Heliogalabus. His whole court was such as cannot be discussed with any degree of freedom; the rules of current convention forbid it.

I can learn from no-standard history thai Queen Elizabeth was a Protestant. What i do learn is that she was neither Catholic nor Protestant, or rather tlisl she was either, neither or both according to the exigency of policy. Indeed, J should say if she had any leaning at all it was to the Catholic faith. History tells us that she (Elizabeth) tried to negotiate marriage with the Catholio fluke of An] oh.

In conclusion, I may point out that tho worst features were in her heartless dealings,with the mass of her subjects. She issued patents to her favourite courtiers whereby they' could extort the last penny from the poor. Tho Poor Law was inaugurated during tho reign of Elizabeth. To quoto the historian:— "Though the reign was in many ways glorious it had been a hard time for the poor. The monasteries were closed, and there was no one whose business it was to relieve theni."

To the dispassionato reader of history, royal courts, whatever their nominal religion, were not places in which to look for moral guidance.—l am, etc., J. M. CAMPBELL. Wellington, June IG, 1919.