216 MURRAY IN SPRING 1569. Lesley, Bishop of Ross, professing to set forth what Norfolk told him, represents Murray as pressing the marriage on the Duke with great fervour.10 It is, unhappily, impossible to believe any of the three, when not corroborated. In any case, Murray certainly led Norfolk to believe that he approved of the nuptials, and afterwards revealed the whole (or as much of it as he pleased) to Elizabeth. Among the Lennox MSS. at Cambridge is a curious account of a statement which Murray desired Leicester to impart orally to Elizabeth. It was sharpening the axe for the Duke's neck. As a consequence of Murray's conversations with him at Hampton Court in the park, Norfolk induced Mary to quiet her own party, sending to her Robert Melville. On January 30 she certainly wrote to Hamilton, Archbishop of St Andrews, bidding her party hold together closely, and watch Murray well, "who, as I hope, will not use extremity so hastily." 11 Probably her hope was based on Murray's conversation with Norfolk. Murray (by February 8) was safely back in Stirling Castle, and if he had any debt of gratitude to his sister, paid it by sending to Cecil a letter from her to Mar of a kind which she could not wish Elizabeth to see. 12 This letter Cecil was to return, as Mar (a man of honour) would not have her letter exposed to her injury. In a week Murray convened the forces of the realm south of Tay to meet at Glasgow, where, in Lennox's absence, Argyll was apt to be powerful : Mary's party, indeed, was attacking Lennox's retainers, especially the laird of Minto, a Stewart, and an active agent for Darnley's father. Murray was also trying to obtain the extradition of Bothwell from Denmark, where, so far, he had been bragging and promising to secure the Orkneys for the Danish crown. By March 11, for which day he had summoned his levies, Murray had to tell Elizabeth of his failures, and of the excesses of Mary's friends. Châtelherault held her commission: the queen's and king's parties were at strife, and Murray was at Stirling. He offered, if the queen's men would acknowledge the king's (that is, his own) authority, to submit all to an assembly of the whole nobility. He uttered a proclamation to the effect that "Satan had persuaded the king's mother to enter England," where he and his party had been honourably acquitted of all wrong, in consequence of their accusing her of murder, a fact proved by her letters. All this proclamation is put into the mouth of her innocent child. 13 Thus disinterestedly had Satan worked for the triumph of the godly. SCHEMES FOR MARY'S RELEASE. 217 Mary Articles of compromise were drawn up, but never agreed upon, by the queen's lords at Glasgow (March 13).14 But at Stirling Cassilis, Herries, and the Archbishop of St Andrews entered themselves as hostages to Murray (March 14), so says the 'Diurnal'; but Murray names Châtelherault in place of the prelate. A convention of the nobles was fixed for April 10 at Edinburgh.15 Murray then executed justice on robbers on the lower Tweed, and released Lord Seton, who had been his prisoner. At the Edinburgh Convention of April 10 Herries was seized and imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle; Châtelherault followed him thither, and Murray had thus executed a coup d'état.16 His excuse was that they declined to sign a paper acknowledging the king. Murray had just sent his favourite agent, Wood, to Elizabeth, who doubtless "allowed" his new proceedings. deeply regretted the events. She had hopes from France, however -the eternal vain Stuart hopes. Among the English nobles there had been a plot to arrest Cecil and marry Mary to Norfolk; and Norfolk was also mixed up in another plot, to reach his ends by the aid of Spain and the Spanish Ambassador. Cecil discovered, and with much tact stopped, the perils to himself: Norfolk's marriage project remained alive, flattered by many of the English lords, and by Mary's old friend, Throckmorton, but concealed from Elizabeth. For the success of these schemes it seemed desirable that Mary should become an Anglican: she actually listened to three weekly British sermons all through Lent; and even Mr Froude, usually pitiless, writes, "It is frightful to think of what she must have suffered." Despite, or in consequence of, Murray's coup d'état in Scotland, despite Huntly's surrender to him on May 10, Elizabeth began once more to try to emancipate herself from her embarrassing captive. Lesley, who was deep in the intrigues against Cecil, with Norfolk, and with the Spanish Ambassador, de Guereau, was chosen to negotiate with Elizabeth for Mary's release. He says that he drew up a long list of articles. They secured the English succession for Mary, and restored her, with an amnesty, and punishment of Bothwell, if he was extradited.17 Cecil offered other projects, only one of which was a slight advance on what Elizabeth had vainly suggested after the reading of the casket letters. Mary, writing to Châtelherault, bade him be of good hope. To La Mothe Fénelon she said that, whatever promises she might sign to get out of England, she would always be France's friend. 18 She 218 NORFOLK A SUITOR OF MARY. had a slight illness after taking medicine, and, perhaps lest she should be accused of poisoning her prisoner, Elizabeth seemed ready to let her go. Certain articles were sent by Elizabeth to Murray in the care of John Wood, an extreme Puritan and deadly enemy of Mary. At the same time Mary sent, by Lord Boyd, to her party the Duke of Norfolk's marriage proposals. She had not accepted them with enthusiasm, though backed by Leicester, Pembroke, and most of the English Council. To win Norfolk meant, for Mary, to lose France and Spain; moreover, she would not wed Norfolk without Elizabeth's consent. Meanwhile Elizabeth was not apprised of the Norfolk marriage,—her lords seem to have expected the idea to be mooted to her by Murray. But Murray was putting down the North, reducing Huntly to obedience, insulting Mary in proclamations, and in no mood to secure her freedom, or comply with the suggestions carried to him by Wood (May 16).19 Though Wood was despatched on May 16, he does not seem to have hurried, for Murray, at Aberdeen, did not answer Elizabeth till June 5. He said that Elizabeth's ideas of the terms for Mary's release were "utterly unlooked for," which might be rendered "utterly unwelcome." He asked for delay; he would try to find a fit negotiator.20 He sent Wood to Lethington (June 10), who was at home, suffering from "an infirmity in his feet," the beginning of his fatal paralysis. Wood informed Cecil that Lethington was willing to come as negotiator "if other impediments do not hinder.” Murray was "driving time" as to arranging the unwelcome compromise on which Elizabeth was insisting. Murray also wrote to Norfolk in such terms that Norfolk tells him on July 1, "You have not only purchased a faithful friend, but also a natural brother "that is, brother-in-law. Norfolk says that he is betrothed to Mary; he has gone so far that he cannot "in conscience" draw back. Indeed we find Mary writing affectionate letters to Norfolk (August 24).21 The tone of submission is disagreeably like that of the casket letters to Bothwell. But if Norfolk cannot retreat, neither can he go on till Murray removes the "empêchements "—that is, consents to the annulling of Mary's marriage with Bothwell, which now she herself recognised as illegal, a thing she could not well do at Lochleven when she was (Nau says) with child by him. Norfolk therefore asks Murray to make haste, and to receive Mary's commission from Lord Boyd. This was the letter which Murray later MURRAY DESERTS NORFOLK. 219 sent to Elizabeth as evidence against Norfolk, his "faithful friend and natural brother." 22 It is evidence that, as late as July 1, Norfolk thought Murray his friend, and an advocate of his marriage with Mary. Boyd met Murray at Inverness, and Lesley says that Murray received the terms of compromise very well, and called a convention to consider them at Perth.23 The convention met on July 25-28; but Murray was hesitating, as Throckmorton learned from Wood, and from a letter sent by Lethington. Throckmorton therefore, in a cyphered letter, advised Murray to trust Lethington, "who is undoubtedly the wisest and sufficientest man to provide for him and all the rest. For if he leaves to be advised by him, he and his country will be in the greatest peril and confusion" (July 20).24 But Murray had made up his mind not to trust Lethington, who was on the side of Mary; for the very good reason (as he told Morton frankly) that he expected her return to power. Lethington was also much influenced by his wife, one of the queen's Maries; moreover, he was, as the phrase runs, "in a cleft stick." His part in Darnley's murder was well known. Any quarrel with a powerful lord might bring on him an indictment. Mary also held proofs against him, as Wood had informed him on June 11, 1568. But it seemed safer to make his peace with Mary by procuring her restoration (he appears by this time to have received "assurances " from her), than to take the chance of what might come out against him in Scotland. Again he had, for the hour, Elizabeth to back him in Mary's restoration, and he perhaps hoped for the success of his really unique public object, the union of the crowns of the two countries. Throckmorton, who was in favour of the Norfolk marriage to secure the succession, therefore advised Murray to be guided by Lethington. Had Lethington known Mary's mind, he would have learned that he was unforgiven. A glance at the names of the assembly in Perth (July 28) shows that Mary's enemies were in force. Here were Mr Froude's "small gallant knot of men who had stood by the Reformation through good and evil." There were Murray, Morton, Glencairn, and the Master of Marischal; with Lindsay and Ruthven, Sempil, and the traitor Bishop of Orkney; James Makgill, the enemy of Lethington, and Bellenden, the Justice - Clerk. The burghs, under the influence of the preachers, were hostile, and the Provost of and member for Glasgow was Stewart of Minto, Lennox's trusted retainer, 220 MURRAY'S PARTY REJECT MARY'S PROPOSALS. while Erskine of Dun represented Montrose. On the other side, Argyll (though named), did not appear; Châtelherault and Herries, taken prisoners "under trust," were locked up in Edinburgh Castle: the temper of the gathering was shown by the fact that Lethington needed an escort of Huntly's and Atholl's men.25 Lesley declares that Murray and Wood made a fair show of backing Mary's restoration, but secretly urged their partisans "to cry out against the same." 26 Murray thus saved his credit with Elizabeth. The assembly rejected the proposal for Mary's "equality of government." "27 Mary's demand for an assent to the annulment of her marriage with Bothwell (without which she could not espouse Norfolk) was refused by forty votes to nine, offence being taken at her styling herself "Queen," and the Archbishop of St Andrews "Head of the Church," a truly Stuart - like error of judgment. Lethington argued for Mary against Makgill, and taunted the adversaries with refusing now what they had imprisoned Mary for not granting two years earlier. The Treasurer, Richardson, took note that Lethington, his brother, and James Balfour had "opposed the king's authority," and that whosoever did so in future would be deemed a traitor. 28 Mr Froude represents Murray as now influenced against Lethington by the statements of Paris, Bothwell's valet, engaged in the Darnley murder. He implicated Lethington, but Murray and every one knew Lethington's guilt. Moreover, Paris was not examined (or, if examined, his statement of an earlier date is not produced) till twelve days after the convention at Perth. After the convention was over, on August 9 and 10, Paris was examined at St Andrews, apparently before Wood, George Buchanan, and Ramsay, a retainer of Murray, who wrote the depositions in French. The whole affair was suspicious. Paris had been extradited, as we saw, and handed over to Clark, captain of the Scots in Danish service, on October 30, 1568. He might have been sent home in time to be examined before the English commissioners in midDecember of that year. Nay, in an early form of Buchanan's 'Detection of Queen Mary,' which was ready in manuscript for the Westminster Commission, it is urged that Paris ought to be produced as the man who knows most about the murder.29 But Paris was not produced. He would have exposed the damning fact that some of Mary's accusers and Murray's associates were themselves guilty. According to Murray's report to |