166

DARNLEY THREATENS MURRAY.

sackcloth, and stand a penitent at St Giles', also at Jedburgh and Dundee. Paul persevered, though reluctantly, in penance at St Giles' and at Jedburgh, but at Dundee he could endure it no longer and returned to England. Bothwell ceased to go to sermon ; Cassilis turned Presbyterian; and Murray and Killigrew desired Cecil's and Leicester's presence, "which would do much good to religion." The good that Leicester could do religion is inconspicuous. It was desired that he should attend the royal child's baptism, but that ceremony was long deferred.

Mary, early in August, wished to reconcile Murray, Bothwell, and Lethington, and hoped to do so at Stirling on the 24th. In the last days of July she had gone to Alloa, where Buchanan reports licentious frolics and harshness to Darnley. Mary may have gone secretly to Alloa to escape Darnley's company: she fared by water up the Forth, Buchanan says, with Bothwell and his "pirates." She resided, Nau tells us, with the Earl of Mar, and the Mars were always relatively reputable, for Scottish nobles of the age. Lennox avers that Mary disported herself at Stirling "in most uncomely manner, arrayed in homely sort, dancing about the market-place of the town." Probably there was some folksfestival (there is one still at Queensferry, men going about arrayed in flowers) at that date.76 We know that the queen held a meeting of the Privy Council at Alloa (July 28). The lawless feuds of the age were denounced. Darnley and Mary declared that they were about to make progresses through the realm, beginning with the Borders. The lieges were ordered to meet their highnesses, in arms, and with provisions for fifteen days, at Peebles on August 13, and go on to Jedburgh, for the settling of the Border. The Elliots proposed to skulk on the English side during this raid of justice. All this was arranged at Alloa on July 28; but the thing was postponed, and Mary went not to Jedburgh, and then to her sorrow, till October 8 or 9.77

On August 3 Bedford reports that Mary and Darnley are separate at bed and board, and that she concealed her movements from him, and spoke of him in terms not to be repeated. Anonymous "Informations out of Scotland" (August 15) declare that Darnley had threatened to kill Murray, and that Mary had reported the words to her brother, and informed him about a small instalment received from the Pope's subsidy. Darnley had been hunting with Mary in Meggatdale; the sport was bad; he was brutally insolent, and with

78

BOTHWELL AND DARNLEY.

:

167

drew from her company: in no company was he welcome. Meanwhile (September 5) Lethington dined at Stirling with Mary his peace seemed to be made. Murray and Mary welcomed him back; Bothwell fretted, but was unheeded. Lennox she had not seen since the death of Riccio.79 By September 20 Lethington could tell Cecil that Mary, in company with Murray, had made up the feud between himself and Bothwell.80

Part of Mary's business in Edinburgh at this time was to understand Exchequer affairs. Buchanan avers, in his 'Detection,' that in the Exchequer House Mary intrigued so scandalously with Bothwell, a newly married man, that the tale reads like a story from Boccaccio. The date is given as September 24 in the list of events called "Cecil's Journal." 81 Buchanan not only owed certain favours to Mary, and not only (it is possible) regarded these favours as unworthy rewards of his poetical begging-letters, but he was also a Lennox man, a Darnleyite, by birth. He had thus several reasons for making out the worst case against Mary, and has rather harmed his case by overstating it. Whatever else occurred on September 24, the Privy Council then summoned loyal lieges of the Border to meet Mary and Darnley at Jedburgh on October 8.82

While Buchanan recounts the amorous misdeeds of Mary at this time, a different complexion is given to matters by Mary's Privy Council. Writing to Catherine de' Medici on October 8, speaking of "ten or twelve days ago,”—that is, September 26 to 28, they say that Mary then came to Edinburgh on public business by their desire. She wanted to bring Darnley; but he preferred to stay at Stirling, where Lennox, his father, visited him. Lennox next wrote to Mary, warning her that, despite his persuasions, Darnley had a ship ready, and meant to leave the country by Michaelmas (September 29). Mary informed the Council, who denounced Darnley's graceless behaviour. Mary, behaving most graciously, tried to win Darnley from his moods, and passed the night with him, but found early next day that he was leaving for Stirling. The Council and du Croc met Darnley in Mary's chamber, and blamed him for his ingratitude to his wife and queen. Neither the lords nor Mary, si sage et vertueuse, were conscious of any offence. Mary entreated him to explain the cause of his anger, but nothing could be wrung out of Darnley. Later he wrote to Mary, complaining that he had not his due honours, and was shunned by the lords. Mary replied that

168

BAND AGAINST DARNLEY (OCTOBER 1566).

she had caused jealousy by honouring him even too much, and that while the murderers of Riccio had entered her room soulz son adieu (as if he had been taking leave of her when they burst in), yet she had never been willing to believe in his guilt. As for the nobles, if he would not be amiable he could not be loved; much less obeyed, to which the nobles would not assent.83 We do not know what nobles signed the letter of the Privy Council, but the Privy Council was clearly siding with the queen. It is quite certain that at this very date (October 1566) all the lords, and Murray, signed a band against Darnley. Murray himself admits that he signed a band early in October, and from other sources we know that the band bound the nobles to protect Mary against Darnley. Him they never would obey, as they also wrote to Catherine de' Medici. The band (which Morton signed in his English exile) said nothing of murdering Darnley. He was merely to be put on one side as a thing without authority.84 Deserted, hated, shunned, conscious of a formal league against him, Darnley "had a mind to go beyond sea in a sort of desperation." 85 Mary went to Jedburgh, arriving probably on October 9 she was bent on the expedition for justice on the Borders, already arranged. Darnley loitered near Edinburgh, taking du Croc into the confidence of his chagrin and wounded pride. 86 There seems to be truth in Knox's continuator's tale that Darnley wrote to the Pope, the King of Spain, and the King of France, complaining that Mary neglected the Catholic cause. 87 Mary knew this, and was the more annoyed, as she was trying to induce the Pope's nuncio, Laureo, to bring over the long-delayed papal subsidy, many thousands of crowns of gold. But Darnley, anxious to be a king indeed, thought to gain his desire by winning over Mary's Catholic allies.

There was now, and was to be, slight question of restoring Catholicism, or of striving for freedom of conscience. The day of Mary's policy, so long prepared, so astutely and vigorously followed, was over: the day of passion had begun. "Had begun," we infer it from Mary's later conduct, for the scandalous tales of her debauchery, told by Buchanan, are of doubtful authority. One thing is certain: Bothwell was no stupid Border ruffian merely, but a man of courtly accomplishments and of letters. Two of his books, French treatises and translations on history and military matters, remain to attest at once his love of reading and his

MARY VISITS BOTHWELL AT HERMITAGE.

169 taste in bookbinding. Familiar with the Court and the wits of France, he wrote French well, in the new Roman hand-elegant, firm, and clear. At Carberry, later, du Croc admired in him "a great captain," who could gaily quote an appropriate classical anecdote. He was young, handsome, reckless; he had been loyal in Mary's utmost need, and he had the Byronic charm of a reputation for mysterious guilt. Such a wooer needed no magic spells.

From this point history becomes a mere criminal trial, wrangled over by prejudice, and confused by dubious evidence. From the contemporary Buchanan and Blackwood, to Froude and Skelton, Schiern and Bresslau, the topic of Mary's guilt has been debated by acute advocates rather than by historians. Authors like Buchanan have prejudiced their own case against Mary by palpable naccuracies and exaggerations. The evidence is partly derived from confessions of men condemned, in that age of judicial torture especially suspicious. Much of it comes from partisan statements : much from the disputed "Casket letters," attributed to Mary. But while documents are disputable, and while the counsel against Mary damage their own cause by their handling of papers, the whole series of events begins to be conclusive against Mary's innocence. On almost every individual fact a fight may be made by the advocates of the queen. Each single damning event may be plausibly contested or explained away. But the whole sway and stream of occurrences moves steadily in favour of but one conclusion, that Mary was at the very least conscious of, and was to the highest degree of probability an active agent in, her husband's murder. It is necessary, though tedious, to follow dates with as much precision as possible. The paper called "Cecil's Journal,” or "Murray's Diary," used by Cecil in the pseudo-trial of the queen, was a statement (far from accurate) of the case for the prosecution. It gives the wounding of Bothwell by a Border reiver on October 7. On October 8 "the queen was advertised," and hasted from Jedburgh, and from thence to the Hermitage, and contracted her sickness.88 Against this date of Mary's journey on the 8th we have a letter of hers to the Pope, dated Edinburgh, October 9.89 The 'Diurnal' makes Mary leave Edinburgh on October 7, to hold the court of justice "which was proclaimed to be held at Jedburgh on the eighth day" of the same month."

90

On the other hand, the headlong Buchanan, in his 'Detection,'

170

MARY'S ILLNESS AT JEDBURGH.

makes Mary speed from Borthwick to Hermitage as soon as she heard of Bothwell's wound. This is given up by all writers: Mary was at Jedburgh for about a week before (on October 15, says the 'Diurnal') she rode to Hermitage to see her wounded officer. There was no frenzied haste: the journey, however, was long, difficult, and dangerous. Buchanan makes Mary ride to Hermitage with ruffians. If so, Murray was one of them.91 Mary's health had never been sound: she now fell into a dangerous illness on October 17. On the 23rd the Council — Huntly (Chancellor), Murray, Atholl, and Lethington - reported to Archbishop Beaton; on the 24th du Croc wrote to the same diplomatist, "The King" (Darnley) "is at Glasgow, and has not come here. It is certain he has been told of the facts, and has had time to come if he chose: I cannot excuse him." 92 But, according to the 'Diurnal,' Darnley hastened to Jedburgh as soon as he heard the bad news, arrived on October 28, was not so well entertained as he ought to have been," and returned on October 29 to Edinburgh, and so to Stirling.93 Meanwhile Bothwell had been carried to Jedburgh, to recover from his wounds. On the 25th he was able to attend a Privy Council. Buchanan speaks here of his "guilty intercourse" with Mary, a thing not very plausible in their circumstances.94

66

About November 10 Mary, having recovered, made a progress by Kelso, Hume Castle, Berwick, and Dunbar, reaching Craigmillar Castle, near Edinburgh, about November 24. Darnley visited her somewhere about the 25th, but du Croc regarded reconciliation as impossible, "unless God effectually put to his hand." Darnley would not humble himself: Mary could not see him speak to any lord without jealousy." Mary was often heard to wish for death.

95

Now occurs the evidence of a document constantly cited as "The Protestation of Huntly and Argyll." It is not contemporary with the events, nor is it signed. Says Dr Hay Fleming, "It was drawn up by Lord Boyd's advice, 'conforme to the Declaratioun' Huntly had made to Bishop Lesley, and was sent by Mary from Bolton on January 5, 1568-69, to Huntly, with a letter directing him and Argyll to subscribe; but leaving it to their discretion to eik and pair' (add or subtract) as they thought most necessary, before returning it to her signed and sealed.' The paper was intercepted by Cecil, and never reached Huntly and Argyll." 96