CRAWFORD IMPEACHES LETHINGTON.

221

Elizabeth, Paris did not reach Leith till June 1569, and his examination was put off during Murray's northern progress. Elizabeth (August 22) tried to stop the execution of Paris. Murray replied that Paris had been executed on August 16 at St Andrews. But Murray, as we shall see, did not send Paris's "authentick " depositions to Cecil till the end of October, when he found that he and Lethington (whom Paris implicated in Darnley's murder) had irretrievably broken with each other.30

As for Paris, he had made a declaration on August 9. He then accused Bothwell and others, but not Mary. On August Io, "interrogated," and probably under fear of torture, he accused Mary. His depositions are, in many points, irreconcilable with each other, with probability, and with the dates of events as presented by whomsoever did present "Cecil's Journal." In one or two other points they singularly corroborate statements in the Lennox MSS. Whatever their value as against Mary, the depositions put an invaluable weapon in the hands of the enemies of Lethington, now Mary's chief supporter.31

While the charges of Paris hung over the head of Lethington, Elizabeth was upbraiding Murray with his conduct of the assembly at Perth, and with its results. Unless he behaves better instantly, Elizabeth "will proceed of ourselves to such a determination with the Queen of Scots as we shall find honourable and meet for ourselves. . . . We doubt how you will like it" (August 12).32

Norfolk also expressed his disgust (August 14). On the 20th August Elizabeth wrote, forbidding Murray to besiege Mary's best strength, the Castle of Dumbarton, held for her by Lord Fleming. Murray replied (September 5) by a temporising letter to Elizabeth from Stirling. On the same day he answered Cecil's remonstrances about Murray's altered behaviour to Lethington. "The fault thereof, as God knows, was never in me."

The bolt had fallen: some news of Paris's confessions had reached Lennox, and Lennox was thought to have caused his retainer, Thomas Crawford, who generally did the denunciations for him, to accuse Lethington. The Secretary, with Atholl and others, had held a Highland hunting meeting near Dunkeld, doubtless for political purposes. They were summoned to a meeting at Stirling by Murray on September 2. Next day Crawford entered the councilchamber, fell on his knees, and impeached Lethington and James Balfour of Darnley's death. This might have been done long ago,

222

LETHINGTON'S SIN AGAINST MARY.

on Hepburn of Bowton's confession, but that had been suppressed by Murray's party. Now was the convenient season. Lethington offered to find sureties for his appearance when summoned; these were refused, and he was locked up in Stirling Castle.33 Hunsdon thought that he was imprisoned, really, for intriguing on Mary's side north of the Highland line. Lethington, later, learned that Cecil had discovered that Lennox gave Crawford no commission to accuse him. In that case Crawford either acted on his own motion, not on that of Lennox, or was moved by Lethington's many enemies.34 In no long time Maitland, in Edinburgh Castle, then held by Kirkcaldy of Grange, his friend, was in cipher correspondence with Mary. He even hoped to bring the preachers to her side, "howsoever I think Nox is inflexible." 35

Mary had once again the Flower of Wit for her partisan, and henceforward Lethington wavered no more. But Mary never forgave him; she hated him living, and when he was dead her detestation pursued him. Ever since she was taken at Carberry Hill she had loathed him. Lethington had committed some inexpiable offence. "Yourselves," wrote Randolph to Lethington and Kirkcaldy, "wrote against her, fought against her, and were the chiefest cause of her apprehension, and imprisonment, and demission of the crown." These acts had Lethington committed immediately after Mary saved his life from the dagger of Bothwell. But Randolph adds, "With somewhat more, that we might say, if it were not to grieve you too much herein." 36 If the falsification of the casket letters is hinted at, it is not the only case in which Kirkcaldy was accused of forgery, not that his hand could have forged the casket letters.

On the unhappy Mary, and on Norfolk, another bolt was falling. About September 6, just after Lethington's arrest, Elizabeth heard of Norfolk's marriage project. He had ever been too timid to speak to her and ask for permission. The idea of another woman being married, most of all Mary, always drove Elizabeth into fury. She heard of the thing we know not how, and summoned Norfolk to her presence. What she said may be guessed: Norfolk retreated to Andover, warning Cecil that Murray had broken out, and was aiming at the crown of Scotland; "God send him such luck as others have had that followed his course." Such luck had Murray in no long time.37 Elizabeth instantly removed Mary to Tutbury, which was garrisoned, to prevent her from being liberated by the

LETHINGTON TRUE TO NORFOLK.

223

Catholics of the north. Dan Ker of Shilstock Braes was her rider on the Border, but by September 18 the Border was overawed by Murray with a great force. The Regent's position was not, however, wholly enviable. Elizabeth, angry as she was, now wished, once for all, to be rid of Mary, to send her into Scotland to take her fortune. But she stipulated that she must have six hostages-three earls and three lords-as sureties that Mary "shall live her natural life without any sinister means to shorten the same."

Elizabeth also bade her envoy, Henry Carey, ask Murray bluntly whether he had treated, behind her back, for the Norfolk marriage (September 21).38 Norfolk was sent for to Windsor, but feigned himself too ill to travel. Several English partisans of the Norfolk marriage were held to examination, including Throckmorton. Lesley was also examined. The bishop told as much truth as he thought was already known, and as many fables as he deemed likely to pass undetected. Murray, in a letter to Elizabeth of October 29, told what he deemed convenient about the business, and enclosed Norfolk's brotherly letter to himself. But there was a point beyond which even Lethington could not go, and that point had been passed by Murray. He invited Lethington to accuse Norfolk; but Lethington, he says, "flatly denied to me in any sort to be an accuser of the Duke of Norfolk, thinking he shall escape these storms." Not being so sanguine, Murray was an accuser of the duke. Murray ends by communicating the blessed news that a Catholic gentleman "has become a good Christian man, and a favourer of the Gospel." Finally, as Lethington, being altogether reprobate, will not betray Norfolk, Murray sends, what he had kept back for two months, Paris's confession accusing Lethington of Darnley's murder, "in authentic form." Perhaps he had, less formally, sent it before.39

Meanwhile Lethington, arrested at Stirling, had been carried to Edinburgh, and lodged in the house of one David Forrester, a friend of Murray's. It was not deemed safe to place him in the castle, commanded by his friend Kirkcaldy. Morton hated Lethington and James Balfour, who, however, was allowed to live in Fife under heavy sureties. But Maitland did not long remain in durance. James Kirkcaldy visited him while at supper at Forrester's, and the same evening Kirkcaldy of Grange brought a letter, forged in Murray's name, obtained Lethington's release, and carried him to the castle, where he was safe. Robert Melville, under examination

224

THE REBELLION OF THE NORTH (1569).

in October 1573, said that he thought Kirkcaldy of Grange was himself the forger. Lethington was in the castle by October 23. "A day of law" was set for him on November 21, but by November 5 Drury knew that he had called all his friends to back him in the old Scottish way, indeed he was sending out his circulars on October 31.40 He professed himself ready, after his trial, to undergo English justice, as an English subject, regarding his traffic with Norfolk.

There was no day of law for Lethington. Morton was afraid to appear as accuser; though he says that Lethington had confessed to him his guilt.* 41 The town was full of Lethington's armed supporters. Murray convened their chiefs, pointed out that they had invited him to be their Regent, and now opposed him. He prorogued the trial, awaiting instructions from Elizabeth. Civil war was thus postponed. He had heard (November 22) of the rebellion of the North of England, which had risen without Norfolk. The English Catholics-Northumberland, Westmoreland, and the rest-failed to rescue Mary, who was transferred from the care of Shrewsbury to that of Huntingdon, and after a vain parade the leaders fled across the Border. On December 8 Murray mustered his forces to resist the entry of the English rebels; he again summoned them to Peebles, to resist "the abominable mass" on December 20. The English chiefs, in sorry state, fled to the Black Laird of Ormiston, one of Darnley's murderers, to the Laird's Jock, and Jock o' the Side (December 21).42 Murray marched to Hawick. The English Government hoped to capture the fugitives by bribing the Black Laird with a free pardon for Darnley's murder.43 But even Ormiston, a man stained with every crime, could not be bought to break the law of Border hospitality. Possibly he did not get the chance. A convenient traitor was found in Hector Armstrong, whose name became a proverb for perfidy. Aided by Martin Elliot, he beguiled and took Northumberland, despite a gallant attempt at rescue by Borderers of both countries. Black Ormiston seized his moment, and robbed Lady Northumberland of all her own and her husband's jewels, clothes, and money." Northumberland was handed over to Murray, but the Kers honourably entertained Westmoreland at their strong Castle of Ferniehirst, near Jedburgh. On January 2 Northumberland was sent to occupy Mary's old rooms at Lochleven.

44

Having now, in Northumberland's person, something to offer by

MURRAY TRIES TO GET POSSESSION OF MARY (1570). 225

way of exchange or barter, Murray asked Elizabeth to hand over Mary, her life being guaranteed by the delivery of hostages. Among others, Morton and Mar signed the request, and Ruthven, who, says Nau, had been making love to Mary when she was in Lochleven. John Knox, "with his one foot in the grave," on January 2, 1570, advised Cecil that "if he struck not at the root" (Mary), "the branches that appear to be broken" (her party) "will bud again with greater force."

In exacting hostages for Mary's safety, Elizabeth might have done worse than stipulate that Knox should be one of them. In the instructions of the bearer of Knox's letter, Elphinstone, were comprised Murray's terms for the bargain. Lesley heard of the affair from Mary herself, as did La Mothe Fénelon, and the exchange did not take place.45

Lesley, however, was imprisoned in the Tower, he thought because Murray revealed his part in the negotiations with Norfolk. All Scotland, wrote Hunsdon from Berwick, was infuriated by the demand for Northumberland's extradition. Sadleyr did not believe that Murray would dare to give him up. Murray, who had behaved with humanity to Lady Northumberland, rescuing her from the Black Laird, made an attempt to take Dumbarton, held by Fleming for Mary, but failed. He was at Stirling on January 14. On the 23rd, as he rode through Linlithgow, Mary's birthplace, he was shot, from the window of a house in the street, by Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh. The miscreant occupied a house belonging to Archbishop Hamilton he covered the floor of the little room wherein he lay with a feather mattress, to deaden the sound of his booted feet; he darkened the room with a black curtain hung behind him; barred the door opening on the street, and had a swift horse saddled at the back door. He fired: Murray reeled in his saddle: Bothwellhaugh mounted and spurred. He cleared a fence which stopped his pursuers, by dint of sticking his dirk into his horse's flank, and galloped into Hamilton, where the Archbishop and Arbroath, son of Châtelherault, received him with acclamations. The Regent died with calmness and fortitude, slain by a man whom he had spared after Langside fight.

The character of Murray has been debated with superfluous fury. To Mr Froude he seemed "noble" and stainless; through Mr Froude's pages he moves crowned with a halo. "He impressed de Silva with the very highest opinion of his character." 46

VOL. II.

Р

We turn