While affairs were in this situation, all those who wished well to

her character, or to public tranquillity, were extremely pleased, and

somewhat surprised, to hear that a friendship was again conciliated

between them, that she had taken a journey to Glasgow on purpose to

visit him during his sickness, that she behaved towards him with great

tenderness, that she had brought him along with her, and that she

appeared thenceforth determined to live with him on a footing more

suitable to the connections between them. Henry, naturally uxorious, and

not distrusting this sudden reconciliation, put himself implicitly into

her hands, and attended her to Edinburgh. She lived in the palace of

Holyrood House; but as the situation of the palace was low, and the

concourse of people about the court was necessarily attended with noise,

which might disturb him in his present infirm state of health, these

reasons were assigned for fitting up an apartment for him in a solitary

house at some distance, called the Kirk of Field. Mary here gave him

marks of kindness and attachment; she conversed cordially with him; and

she lay some nights in a room below his; but on the ninth of February,

she told him that she would pass that night in the palace, because

the marriage of one of her servants was there to be celebrated in her

presence. About two o’clock in the morning, the whole town was much

alarmed at hearing a great noise; and was still more astonished, when

it was discovered that the noise came from the king’s house, which was

blown up by gunpowder; that his dead body was found at some distance in

a neighboring field; and that no marks, either of fire, contusion, or

violence appeared upon it.[*]

No doubt could be entertained but Henry was murdered; and general

conjecture soon pointed towards the earl of Bothwell as the author of

the crime.[**] But as his favor with Mary was visible, and his power

great, no one ventured to declare openly his sentiments; and all men

remained in silence and mute astonishment. Voices, however, were heard

in the streets, during the darkness of the night, proclaiming Bothwell,

and even Mary herself, to be murderers of the king; bills were secretly

affixed on the walls to the same purpose; offers were made, that, upon

giving proper securities, his guilt should be openly proved; but after

one proclamation from the court, offering a reward and indemnity to any

one that would discover the author of that villany, greater vigilance

was employed in searching out the spreaders of the libels and reports

against Bothwell and the queen, than in tracing the contrivers of the

king’s assassination, or detecting the regicides.[***]

The earl of Lenox, who lived at a distance from court in poverty and

contempt, was roused by the report of his son’s murder, and wrote to

the queen, imploring speedy justice against the assassins; among whom he

named the earl of Bothwell, Sir James Balfour, and Gilbert Balfour his

brother, David Chalmers, and four others of the queen’s household; all

of them persons who had been mentioned in the bills affixed to the walls

at Edinburgh.[****]

* It was imagined that Henry had been strangled before the

house was blown up. But this supposition is contradicted by

the confession of the criminals; and there is no necessity

to admit it in order to account for the condition of his

body. There are many instances that men’s lives have been

saved who had been blown up in ships. Had Henry fallen on

water, he had not probably been killed.

** Melvil, p. 78. Cabbala, p. 136.

*** Anderson’s Collections, vol. ii. p. 38; vol. iv. p. 167,

168. Spotswood, p. 200. Keith, p. 374.

**** Keith, p. 372. Anderson, vol. ii. p. 3.

[Illustration: 1-467-mary_stuart.jpg MARY STUART]

Mary took his demand of speedy justice in a very literal sense, and

allowing only fifteen days for the examination of this important affair,

she sent a citation to Lenox, requiring him to appear in court, and

prove his charge against Bothwell.[*] This nobleman, meanwhile, and

all the other persons accused by Lenox, enjoyed their full liberty;[**]

Bothwell himself was continually surrounded with armed men; [***] took

his place in council;[****] lived during some time in the house with

Mary;[v] and seemed to possess all his wonted confidence and familiarity

with her. Even the Castle of Edinburgh, a place of great consequence

in this critical time, was intrusted to him, and under him, to his

creature, Sir James Balfour, who had himself been publicly charged as

an accomplice in the king’s murder.[v*] Lenox, who had come as far as

Stirling with a view of appearing at the trial, was informed of all

these circumstances; and reflecting on the small train which attended

him, he began to entertain very just apprehensions from the power,

insolence, and temerity of his enemy. He wrote to Mary, desiring that

the day of trial might be prorogued; and conjured her, by all the regard

which she bore to her own honor, to employ more leisure and deliberation

in determining a question of such extreme moment.[v**] No regard was

paid to his application: the jury was enclosed, of which the earl

of Caithness was chancellor; and though Lenox, foreseeing this

precipitation, had ordered Cunningham, one of his retinue, to appear in

court, and protest in his name against the acquittal of the criminal,

the jury proceeded to a verdict.[v***] The verdict was such as it

behoved them to give, where neither accuser nor witness appeared;

and Bothwell was absolved from the king’s murder. The jury, however,

apprehensive that their verdict would give great scandal, and perhaps

expose them afterwards to some danger, entered a protest, in which they

represented the necessity of their proceedings.[v****]

* Keith, p. 373.

** Keith, p. 374, 375.

*** Keith, p. 405.

**** Anderson, vol. i. p. 38, 40, 50, 52.

v Anderson, vol. ii. p. 274.

v* Spotswood, p. 201.

v** Keith, p. 375. Anderson, vol. i. p. 52.

v*** Keith, p. 376. Anderson, vol. ii. p. 106. Spotswood, p.

201.

v**** Spotswood, p. 201. Anderson, vol. i p. 113.

It is remarkable, that the indictment was laid against Bothwell for

committing the crime on the ninth of February, not the tenth, the real

day on which Henry was assassinated.[*] The interpretation generally

put upon this error, too gross, it was thought, to have proceeded from

mistake, was, that the secret council by whom Mary was governed,

not trusting entirely to precipitation, violence, and authority,

had provided this plea, by which they insured, at all adventures, a

plausible pretence for acquitting Bothwell.

Two days after this extraordinary transaction, a parliament was held;

and though the verdict in favor of Bothwell was attended with such

circumstances as strongly confirmed, rather than diminished, the general

opinion of his guilt, he was the person chosen to carry the royal

sceptre on the first meeting of that national assembly.[**] In this

parliament a rigorous act was made against those who set up defamatory

bills; but no notice was taken of the king’s murder.[***] The favor

which Mary openly bore to Bothwell kept every one in awe; and the

effects of this terror appeared more plainly in another transaction,

which ensued immediately upon the dissolution of the parliament. A bond

or association was framed; in which the subscribers, after relating the

acquittal of Bothwell by a legal trial, and mentioning a further offer

which he had made, to prove his innocence by single combat, oblige

themselves, in case any person should afterwards impute to him the

king’s murder, to defend him with their whole power against such

calumniators. After this promise, which implied no great assurance in

Bothwell of his own innocence, the subscribers mentioned the necessity

of their queen’s marriage, in order to support the government; and

they recommended Bothwell to her as a husband.[****] This paper was

subscribed by all the considerable nobility there present. In a

country divided by violent factions, such a concurrence in favor of one

nobleman, nowise distinguished above the rest, except by his flagitious

conduct, could never have been obtained, had not every one been certain,

at least firmly persuaded, that Mary was fully determined on this

measure.[v] [9] Nor would such a motive have sufficed to influence

men, commonly so stubborn and untractable, had they not been taken by

surprise, been ignorant of each other’s sentiments, and overawed by the

present power of the court, and by the apprehensions of further violence

from persons so little governed by any principles of honor and humanity.

Even with all these circumstances, the subscription to this paper may

justly be regarded as a reproach to the nation.

* Keith, p. 375. Anderson, vol. ii. p. 93. Spotswood, p.

201.

** Keith, p. 78. Crawford, p. 14.

*** Keith, p. 389.

**** Keith, p. 381.

v See note I, at the end of the volume.

The subsequent measures of Bothwell were equally precipitate and

audacious. Mary having gone to Stirling to pay a visit to her son, he

assembled a body of eight hundred horse, on pretence of pursuing some

robbers on the borders; and having waylaid her on her return, he seized

her person near Edinburgh, and carried her to Dunbar, with an avowed

design of forcing her to yield to his purpose. Sir James Melvil, one of

her retinue, was carried along with her, and says not that he saw any

signs of reluctance or constraint; he was even informed, as he tells

us, by Bothwell’s officers, that the whole transaction was managed in

concert with her.[*] A woman, indeed, of that spirit and resolution

which is acknowledged to belong to Mary, does not usually, on these

occasions, give such marks of opposition to real violence as can appear

any wise doubtful or ambiguous. Some of the nobility, however, in order

to put matters to further trial, sent her a private message, in which

they told her, that if in reality she lay under force, they would use

all their efforts to rescue her. Her answer was, that she had indeed

been carried to Dunbar by violence, but ever since her arrival had been

so well treated that she willingly remained with Bothwell.[**] No one

gave himself thenceforth any concern to relieve her from a captivity

which was believed to proceed entirely from her own approbation and

connivance.

This unusual conduct was at first ascribed to Mary’s sense of the infamy

attending her purposed marriage, and her desire of finding some color

to gloss over the irregularity of her conduct. But a pardon, given

to Bothwell a few days after, made the public carry their conjectures

somewhat further. In this deed, Bothwell received a pardon for the

violence committed on the queen’s person, and for “all other crimes;” a

clause by which the murder of the king was indirectly forgiven. The rape

was then conjectured to have been only a contrivance, in order to afford

a pretence for indirectly remitting a crime, of which it would have

appeared scandalous to make openly any mention.[***]

* Melvil, p. 80.

** Spotswood, p. 202.

*** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 61.

These events passed with such rapidity, that men had no leisure to

admire sufficiently one incident, when they were surprised with a

new one equally rare and uncommon. There still, however, remained one

difficulty which it was not easy to foresee how the queen and Bothwell,

determined as they were to execute their shameful purpose, could find

expedients to overcome. The man who had procured the subscription of the

nobility, recommending him as a husband to the queen, and who had acted

this seeming violence on her person, in order to force her consent, had

been married two years before to another woman; to a woman of merit, of

a noble family, sister to the earl of Huntley. But persons blinded by

passion, and infatuated with crime, soon shake off all appearance of

decency. A suit was commenced for a divorce between Bothwell and his

wife; and this suit was opened at the same instant in two different, or

rather opposite courts; in the court of the archbishop of St. Andrew’s,

which was Popish, and governed itself by the canon law; and in the

new consistorial or commissariot court, which was Protestant, and was

regulated by the principles of the reformed teachers. The plea advanced

in each court was so calculated as to suit the principles which there

prevailed; in the archbishop’s court, the pretence of consanguinity was

employed, because Bothwell was related to his wife in the fourth degree;

in the commissariot court, the accusation of adultery was made use

of against him. The parties, too, who applied for the divorce, were

different in the different courts: Bothwell was the person who sued

in the former; his wife in the latter. And the suit in both courts was

opened, pleaded, examined, and decided, with the utmost precipitation;

and a sentence of divorce was pronounced in four days.[*]

* Anderson, vol. ii. p. 280.

The divorce being thus obtained, it was thought proper that Mary should

be conducted to Edinburgh, and should there appear before the courts of

judicature, and should acknowledge herself restored to entire freedom.

This was understood to be contrived in a view of obviating all doubts

with regard to the validity of her marriage. Orders were then given

to publish in the church the banns between the queen and the duke of

Orkney; for that was the title which he now bore; and Craig, a minister

of Edinburgh, was applied to for that purpose. This clergyman, not

content with having refused compliance, publicly in his sermons

condemned the marriage, and exhorted all who had access to the queen,

to give her their advice against so scandalous an alliance. Being called

before the council to answer for this liberty, he showed a courage which

might cover all the nobles with shame, on account of their tameness

and servility. He said that, by the rules of the church, the earl of

Bothwell, being convicted of adultery, could not be permitted to marry;

that the divorce between him and his former wife was plainly procured

by collusion, as appeared by the precipitation of the sentence, and

the sudden conclusion of his marriage with the queen; and that all the

suspicions which prevailed with regard to the king’s murder, and the

queen’s concurrence in the former rape, would thence receive undoubted

confirmation. He therefore exhorted Bothwell, who was present, no

longer to persevere in his present criminal enterprises; and turning his

discourse to the other counsellors, he charged them to employ all their

influence with the queen, in order to divert her from a measure which

would load her with eternal infamy and dishonor. Not satisfied even with

this admonition, he took the first opportunity of informing the public,

from the pulpit, of the whole transaction; and expressed to them his

fears that, notwithstanding all remonstrances, their sovereign was still

obstinately bent on her fatal purpose. “For himself,” he said, “he had

already discharged his conscience; and yet again would take heaven

and earth to witness that he abhorred and detested that marriage as

scandalous and hateful in the sight of mankind; but since the great, as

he perceived, either by their flattery or silence, gave countenance to

the measure, he besought the faithful to pray fervently to the

Almighty that a resolution, taken contrary to all law, reason, and good

conscience, might, by the divine blessing, be turned to the comfort and

benefit of the church and kingdom.” These speeches offended the court

extremely; and Craig was anew summoned before the council, to answer for

his temerity in thus passing the bounds of his commission. But he told

them, that the bounds of his commission were the word of God, good laws,

and natural reason; and were the Queen’s marriage tried by any of these

standards, it would appear infamous and dishonorable, and would so be

esteemed by the whole world. The council were so overawed by this heroic

behavior in a private clergyman, that they dismissed him without further

censure or punishment.[*]

* Spotswood, p. 203. Anderson, vol. ii. p. 280.

But though this transaction might have recalled Bothwell and the queen

of Scots from their infatuation, and might have instructed them in the

dispositions of the people, as well as in their own inability to oppose

them, they were still resolute to rush forward to their own manifest

destruction. The marriage was solemnized by the bishop of Orkney, a

Protestant, who was afterwards deposed by the church for this scandalous

compliance. Few of the nobility appeared at the ceremony: they had most

of them, either from shame or fear, retired to their own houses. The

French ambassador, Le Croc, an aged gentleman of honor and character,

could not be prevailed on, though a dependent of the house of Guise, to

countenance the marriage by his presence.[*] Elizabeth remonstrated, by

friendly letters and messages, against the marriage.[**] The court of

France made like opposition; but Mary, though on all other occasions she

was extremely obsequious to the advice of her relations in that country,

was here determined to pay no regard to their opinion.

The news of these transactions, being carried to foreign countries,

filled Europe with amazement, and threw infamy, not only on the

principal actors in them, but also on the whole nation, who seemed, by

their submission and silence, and even by their declared approbation,

to give their sanction to these scandalous practices.[***] The Scots who

resided abroad met with such reproaches, that they durst nowhere appear

in public; and they earnestly exhorted their countrymen at home to

free them from the public odium, by bringing to condign punishment the

authors of such atrocious crimes. This intelligence, with a little more

leisure for reflection, roused men from their lethargy; and the rumors

which, from the very beginning,[****] had been spread against Mary, as

if she had concurred in the king’s murder, seemed now, by the subsequent

transactions, to have received a strong confirmation and authority.

* Spotswood, p. 203. Melvil, p. 82.

** Keith, p. 392.

*** Digges, p. 14.

**** Melvil, p. 82. Keith, p. 402. Anderson, voL i. p. 128,

134, Crawford, p. 11. Keith, Pref. p. 9.

It was every where said, that even though no particular and direct

proofs had as yet been produced of the queen’s guilt, the whole tenor

of her late conduct was sufficient, not only to beget suspicion, but

to produce entire conviction against her: that her sudden resolution

of being reconciled to her husband, whom before she had long and justly

hated; her bringing him to court, from which she had banished him by

neglects and rigors; her fitting up separate apartments for him; were

all of them circumstances which, though trivial in themselves, yet,

being compared with the subsequent events, bore a very unfavorable

aspect for her: that the least which, after the king’s murder, might

have been expected in her situation, was a more than usual caution in

her measures, and an extreme anxiety to punish the real assassins, in

order to free herself from all reproach and suspicion: that no woman who

had any regard to her character, would allow a man, publicly accused of

her husband’s murder, so much as to approach her presence, far less give

him a share in her councils, and endow him with favor and authority that

an acquittal, merely in the absence of accusers, was very ill fitted to

satisfy the public; especially if that absence proceeded from a designed

precipitation of the sentence, and from the terror which her known

friendship for the criminal had infused into every one: that the very

mention of her marriage to such a person, in such circumstances, was

horrible; and the contrivances of extorting a consent from the nobility,

and of concerting a rape, were gross artifices, more proper to discover

her guilt than prove her innocence: that where a woman thus shows a

consciousness of merited reproach, and instead of correcting, provides

only thin glosses to cover her exceptionable conduct, she betrays a

neglect of fame, which must either be the effect or the cause of the

most shameful enormities: that to espouse a man who had, a few days

before, been so scandalously divorced from his wife, who, to say

the least, was believed to have a few months before assassinated her

husband, was so contrary to the plainest rules of behavior, that no

pretence of indiscretion or imprudence could account for such a conduct:

that a woman who, so soon after her husband’s death, though not attended

with any extraordinary circumstances, contracts a marriage which might

in itself be the most blameless, cannot escape severe censure; but one

who overlooks for her pleasure so many other weighty considerations, was

equally capable, in gratifying her appetites, to neglect every regard to

honor and humanity: that Mary was not ignorant of the prevailing opinion

of the public with regard to her own guilt, and of the inferences which

would every where be drawn from her conduct; and therefore, if she still

continued to pursue measures which gave such just offence, she ratified

by her actions, as much as she could by the most formal confession,

all the surmises and imputations of her enemies: that a prince was here

murdered in the face of the world; Bothwell alone was suspected and

accused; if he were innocent, nothing could absolve him, either in

Mary’s eyes or those of the public, but the detection and conviction

of the real assassin: yet no inquiry was made to that purpose, though a

parliament had been assembled; the sovereign and wife was here plainly

silent from guilt, the people from terror: that the only circumstance

which opposed all these presumptions, or rather proofs, was the

benignity and goodness of her preceding behavior, which seemed to remove

her from all suspicions of such atrocious inhumanity; but that the

characters of men were extremely variable, and persons guilty of the

worst actions were not always naturally of the worst and most criminal

dispositions; that a woman who, in a critical and dangerous moment, had

sacrificed her honor to a man of abandoned principles, might thenceforth

be led blindfold by him to the commission of the most enormous crimes,

and was in reality no longer at her own disposal: and that, though

one supposition was still left to alleviate her blame; namely, that

Bothwell, presuming on her affection towards him, had of himself

committed the crime, and had never communicated it to her; yet such a

sudden and passionate love to a man whom she had long known, could not

easily be accounted for, without supposing some degree of preceding

guilt; and as it appeared that she was not afterwards restrained, either

by shame or prudence, from incurring the highest reproach and danger,

it was not likely that a sense of duty or humanity would have a more

powerful influence over her.

These were the sentiments which prevailed throughout Scotland: and as

the Protestant teachers, who had great authority, had long borne an

animosity to Mary, the opinion of her guilt was by that means the more

widely diffused, and made the deeper impression on the people. Some

attempts made by Bothwell, and, as is pretended, with her consent, to

get the young prince into his power, excited the most serious attention;

and the principal nobility, even many of those who had formerly been

constrained to sign the application in favor of Bothwells marriage, met

at Stirling, and formed an association for protecting the prince, and

punishing the king’s murderers.[*]

* Keith, p. 394.

The earl of Athole himself, a known Catholic, was the first author of

this confederacy, the earls of Argyle, Morton, Marre, Glencairne, the

lords Boyd, Lindesey, Hume, Semple, Kirkaldy of Grange, Tulibardine,

and Secretary Lidington, entered zealously into it. The earl of Murray,

foreseeing such turbulent times, and being desirous to keep free of

these dangerous factions, had some time before desired and obtained

Mary’s permission to retire into France.

Lord Hume was first in arms; and leading a body of eight hundred horse,

suddenly environed the queen of Scots and Bothwell, in the Castle of

Borthwick. They found means of making their escape to Dunbar; while the

confederate lords were assembling their troops at Edinburgh, and taking

measures to effect their purpose. Had Bothwell been so prudent as to

keep within the fortress of Dunbar, his enemies must have dispersed for

want of pay and subsistence; but hearing that the associated lords were

fallen into distress, he was so rash as to take the field, and advance

towards them. The armies met at Carberry Hill, about six miles from

Edinburgh; and Mary soon became sensible that her own troops disapproved

of her cause, and were averse to spill their blood in the quarrel.[*]

After some bravadoes of Bothwell, where he discovered very little

courage, she saw no resource but that of holding a conference with

Kirkaldy of Grange, and of putting herself, upon some general promises,

into the hands of the confederates. She was conducted to Edinburgh,

amidst the insults of the populace; who reproached her with her crimes,

and even held before her eyes, which way soever she turned, a banner,

on which were painted the murder of her husband and the distress of her

infant son.[**] Mary, overwhelmed with her calamities, had recourse to

tears and lamentations. Meanwhile Bothwell, during her conference with

Grange, fled unattended to Dunbar; and fitting out a few small ships,

set sail for the Orkneys, where he subsisted during some time by piracy.

He was pursued thither by Grange, and his ship was taken, with several

of his servants; who afterwards discovered all the circumstances of the

king’s murder, and were punished for the crime.[***] Bothwell himself

escaped in a boat, and found means to get a passage to Denmark, where

he was thrown into prison, lost his senses, and died miserably about ten

years after; an end worthy of his flagitious conduct and behavior.

* Keith, p. 402. Spotswood, p. 207.

** Melvil, p. 83, 84.

*** Anderson, vol. ii. p. 165, 166, etc.

The queen of Scots, now in the hands of an enraged faction met with such

treatment as a sovereign may naturally expect from subjects, who have

their future security to provide for, as well as their present animosity

to gratify. It is pretended that she behaved with a spirit very

little suitable to her condition, avowed her inviolable attachment to

Bothwell,[*] and even wrote him a letter, which the lords intercepted,

wherein she declared, that she would endure any extremity, nay, resign

her dignity and crown itself, rather than relinquish his affections.[**]

The malecontents, finding the danger to which they were exposed in case

Mary should finally prevail, thought themselves obliged to proceed

with rigor against her; and they sent her next day under a guard to the

Castle of Lochlevin, situated in a lake of that name. The mistress of

the house was mother to the earl of Murray; and as she pretended to have

been lawfully married to the late king of Scots, she naturally bore

an animosity to Mary, and treated her with the utmost harshness and

severity.

* Keith, p. 419.

** Melvil, p. 84.

Elizabeth, who was fully informed of all those incidents, seemed touched

with compassion towards the unfortunate queen; and all her fears and

jealousies being now laid asleep, by the consideration of that ruin and

infamy in which Mary’s conduct had involved her, she began to reflect

on the instability of human affairs, the precarious state of royal

grandeur, the danger of encouraging rebellious subjects; and she

resolved to employ her authority for alleviating the calamities of

her unhappy kinswoman. She sent Sir Nicholas Throgmorton ambassador

to Scotland, in order to remonstrate both with Mary and the associated

lords; and she gave him instructions, which, though mixed with some

lofty pretensions, were full of that good sense which was so natural to

her, and of that generosity which the present interesting conjuncture

had called forth. She empowered him to declare[*] in her name to Mary,

that the late conduct of that princess, so enormous, and in every

respect so unjustifiable, had given her the highest offence; and though

she felt the movements of pity towards her, she had once determined

never to interpose in her affairs, either by advice or assistance,

but to abandon her entirely, as a person whose condition was totally

desperate, and honor irretrievable.

* The reality of this letter appears somewhat disputable;

chiefly because Murray and his associates never mentioned it

in their accusation of her before Queen Elizabeth’s

commissioners.

That she was well assured that other foreign princes, Mary’s near

relations, had embraced the same resolution; but, for her part, the late

events had touched her heart with more tender sympathy, and had made

her adopt measures more favorable to the liberty and interests of the

unhappy queen: that she was determined not to see her oppressed by her

rebellious subjects, but would employ all her good offices, and even her

power, to redeem her from captivity, and place her in such a condition

as would at once be compatible with her dignity and the safety of her

subjects: that she conjured her to lay aside all thoughts of revenge,

except against the murderers of her husband; and as she herself was

his near relation, she was better entitled than the subjects of Mary to

interpose her authority on that head; and she therefore besought that

princess, if she had any regard to her own honor and safety, not to

oppose so just and reasonable a demand: that after those two points

were provided for, her own liberty and the punishment of her husband’s

assassins, the safety of her infant son was next to be considered; and

there seemed no expedient more proper for that purpose, than sending him

to be educated in England: and that, besides the security which would

attend his removal from a scene of faction and convulsions, there were

many other beneficial consequences, which it was easy to foresee as the

result of his education in that country.[*]

* Keith, p. 411, 412, etc

The remonstrances which Throgmorton was instructed to make to the

associated lords, were entirely conformable to these sentiments which

Elizabeth entertained in Mary’s favor. She empowered him to tell them,

that whatever blame she might throw on Mary’s conduct, any opposition

to their sovereign was totally unjustifiable, and incompatible with all

order and good government: that it belonged not to them to reform, much

less to punish, the maleadministration of their prince; and the only

arms which subjects could in any case lawfully employ against the

supreme authority, were entreaties, counsels, and representations: that

if these expedients failed, they were next to appeal by their prayers to

Heaven, and to wait with patience till the Almighty, in whose hands are

the hearts of princes, should be pleased to turn them to justice and

to mercy. That she inculcated not this doctrine because she herself was

interested in its observance, but because it was universally received in

all well-governed states, and was essential to the preservation of civil

society: that she required them to restore their queen to liberty; and

promised, in that case, to concur with them in all proper expedients for

regulating the government, for punishing the king’s murderers, and for

guarding the life and liberty of the infant prince: and that, if

the services which she had lately rendered the Scottish nation, in

protecting them from foreign usurpation, were duly considered by them,

they would repose confidence in her good offices, and would esteem

themselves blameworthy in having hitherto made no application to her.[*]

Elizabeth, besides these remonstrances, sent by Throgmorton some

articles of accommodation, which he was to propose to both parties,

as expedients for the settlement of public affairs; and though these

articles contained some important restraints on the sovereign power,

they were in the main calculated for Mary’s advantage, and were

sufficiently indulgent to her.[**] The associated lords, who determined

to proceed with greater severity, were apprehensive of Elizabeth’s

partiality; and being sensible that Mary would take courage from the

protection of that powerful princess,[***] they thought proper, after

several affected delays, to refuse the English ambassador all access

to her. There were four different schemes proposed in Scotland for the

treatment of the captive queen: one, that she should be restored to her

authority under very strict limitations: the second, that she should be

obliged to resign her crown to the prince, be banished the kingdom,

and be confined either to France or England; with assurances from the

sovereign in whose dominions she should reside, that she should make no

attempts to the disturbance of the established government: the third,

that she should be publicly tried for her crimes, of which her enemies

pretended to have undoubted proof, and be sentenced to perpetual

imprisonment: the fourth was still more severe, and required that, after

her trial and condemnation, capital punishment should be inflicted upon

her.[****] Throgmorton supported the mildest proposal; but though

he promised his mistress’s guaranty for the performance of articles,

threatened the ruling party with immediate vengeance in case of

refusal,[v] and warned them not to draw on themselves, by their

violence, the public reproach which now lay upon their queen, he found

that, excepting Secretary Lidington, he had not the good fortune to

convince any of the leaders.

* Keith, p. 414, 415, 429.

** Keith, p. 416.

*** Keith, p. 427.

**** Keith, p. 420.

v Keith, p. 428.

All counsels seemed to tend towards the more severe expedients; and

the preachers, in particular, drawing their examples from the rigorous

maxims of the Old Testament, which can only be warranted by particular

revelations, inflamed the minds of the people against their unhappy

sovereign.[*]

There were several pretenders to the regency of the young prince

after the intended deposition of Mary. The earl of Lenox claimed that

authority as grandfather to the prince: the duke of Chatelrault, who

was absent in France, had pretensions as next heir to the crown: but the

greatest number of the associated lords inclined to the earl of

Murray, in whose capacity they had entire trust, and who possessed the

confidence of the preachers and more zealous reformers. All measures

being therefore concerted, three instruments were sent to Mary, by the

hands of Lord Lindesey and Sir Robert Melvil; by one of which she was

to resign the crown in favor of her son, by another to appoint Murray

regent, by the third to name a council, which should administer the

government till his arrival in Scotland. The queen of Scots, seeing no

prospect of relief, lying justly under apprehensions for her life, and

believing that no deed which she executed during her captivity could be

valid, was prevailed on, after a plentiful effusion of tears, to sign

these three instruments; and she took not the trouble of inspecting any

one of them.[**] In consequence of this forced resignation, the young

prince was proclaimed king, by the name of James VI. He was soon

after crowned at Stirling, and the earl of Morton took in his name

the coronation oath; in which a promise to extirpate heresy was not

forgotten. Some republican pretensions, in favor of the people’s power,

were countenanced in this ceremony;[***] and a coin was soon after

struck, on which the famous saying of Trajan was inscribed, Pro me; si

merear, in me; “For me; if I deserve it, against me.”[****] Throgmorton

had orders from his mistress not to assist at the coronation of the king

of Scots.[v]

* Keith, p. 422, 426.

** Melvil, p. 85. Spotswood, p. 211. Anderson, vol. iii. p.

19.

*** Keith, p. 439, 440.

**** Keith, p. 440. Append, p. 150.

v Keith, p. 430

The council of regency had not long occasion to exercise their

authority. The earl of Murray arrived from France, and took possession

of his high office. He paid a visit to the captive queen, and spoke to

her in a manner which better suited her past conduct than her present

condition. This harsh treatment quite extinguished in her breast any

remains of affection towards him.[*] Murray proceeded afterwards to

break, in a more public manner, all terms of decency with her. He

summoned a parliament; and that assembly, after voting that she was

undoubtedly an accomplice in her husband’s murder, condemned her to

imprisonment, ratified her demission of the crown, and acknowledged her

son for king, and Murray for regent.[**] The regent, a man of vigor and

abilities, employed himself successfully in reducing the kingdom.

He bribed Sir James Balfour to surrender the Castle of Edinburgh:

he constrained the garrison of Dunbar to open their gates; and he

demolished that fortress.

But though every thing thus bore a favorable aspect to the new

government, and all men seemed to acquiesce in Murray’s authority, a

violent revolution, however necessary, can never be effected without

great discontents; and it was not likely that, in a country where the

government, in its most settled state, possessed a very disjointed

authority, a new establishment should meet with no interruption or

disturbance. Few considerable men of the nation seemed willing to

support Mary, so long as Bothwell was present; but the removal of that

obnoxious nobleman had altered the sentiments of many. The duke of

Chatelrault, being disappointed of the regency, bore no good will

to Murray; and the same sentiments were embraced by all his numerous

retainers. Several of the nobility, finding that others had taken the

lead among the associators, formed a faction apart, and opposed the

prevailing power; and besides their being moved by some remains of duty

and affection towards Mary, the malecontent lords, observing every thing

carried to extremity against her, were naturally led to embrace her

cause, and shelter themselves under her authority. All who retained any

propensity to the Catholic religion were induced to join this party;

and even the people in general, though they had formerly either

detested Mary’s crimes or blamed her imprudence, were now inclined

to compassionate her present situation, and lamented that a person

possessed of so many amiable accomplishments, joined to such high

dignity, should be treated with such extreme severity.[***]

* Melvil, p. 87. Keith, p. 445.

** Anderson, vol. ii. p. 206, et seq.

*** Buchanan, lib. xviii. c. 53.

Animated by all these motives, many of the principal nobility now

adherents to the queen of Scots, met at Hamilton, and concerted measures

for supporting the cause of that princess.

{1568.} While these humors were in fermentation, Mary was employed in

contrivances for effecting her escape; and she engaged, by her charms

and caresses, a young gentleman, George Douglas, brother to the laird of

Lochlevin, to assist her in that enterprise. She even went so far as to

give him hopes of espousing her, after her marriage with Bothwell should

be dissolved on the plea of force; and she proposed this expedient

to the regent, who rejected it. Douglas, however, persevered in his

endeavors to free her from captivity; and having all opportunities of

access to the house, he was at last successful in the undertaking.

He conveyed her in disguise into a small boat, and himself rowed her

ashore. She hastened to Hamilton; and the news of her arrival in that

place being immediately spread abroad, many of the nobility flocked to

her with their forces. A bond of association for her defence was signed

by the earls of Argyle, Huntley, Eglington, Crawford, Cassilis, Rothes,

Montrose, Sutherland, Erroi, nine bishops, and nine barons, besides many

of the most considerable gentry.[*] And in a few days, an army, to the

number of six thousand men, was assembled under her standard.

Elizabeth was no sooner informed of Mary’s escape, than she discovered

her resolution of persevering in the same generous and friendly measures

which she had hitherto pursued. If she had not employed force against

the regent during the imprisonment of that princess, she had been

chiefly withheld by the fear of pushing him to greater extremities

against her;[**] but she had proposed to the court of France an

expedient, which, though less violent, would have been no less effectual

for her service: she desired that France and England should by concert

cut off all commerce with the Scots, till they should do justice to

their injured sovereign.[***]

* Keith, p. 475.

** Keith, p. 463. Cabala, p. 141.

*** Keith, p. 462.

She now despatched Leighton into Scotland to offer both her good

offices, and the assistance of her forces, to Mary; but as she

apprehended the entrance of French troops into the kingdom, she desired

that the controversy between the queen of Scots and her subjects might

by that princess be referred entirely to her arbitration, and that no

foreign succors should be introduced into Scotland.[*]

But Elizabeth had not leisure to exert fully her efforts in favor of

Mary. The regent made haste to assemble forces; and notwithstanding that

his army was inferior in number to that of the queen of Scots, he took

the field against her. A battle was fought at Langside, near Glasgow,

which was entirely decisive in favor of the regent; and though Murray,

after his victory, stopped the bloodshed, yet was the action followed

by a total dispersion of the queen’s party. That unhappy princess fled

southwards from the field of battle with great precipitation, and came

with a few attendants to the borders of England. She here deliberated

concerning her next measures, which would probably prove so important to

her future happiness or misery. She found it impossible to remain in her

own kingdom: she had an aversion, in her present wretched condition,

to return into France, where she had formerly appeared with so much

splendor; and she was not, besides, provided with a vessel which could

safely convey her thither: the late generous behavior of Elizabeth made

her hope for protection, and even assistance, from that quarter;[**] and

as the present fears from her domestic enemies were the most urgent,

she overlooked all other considerations, and embraced the resolution

of taking shelter in England. She embarked on board a fishing-boat in

Galloway, and landed the same day at Workington, in Cumberland,

about thirty miles from Carlisle, whence she immediately despatched

a messenger to London, notifying her arrival, desiring leave to

visit Elizabeth, and craving her protection, in consequence of former

professions of friendship made her by that princess.

Elizabeth now found herself in a situation when it was become necessary

to take some decisive resolution with regard to her treatment of the

queen of Scots; and as she had hitherto, contrary to the opinion of

Cecil, attended more to the motives of generosity than of policy,[***]

she was engaged by that prudent minister to weigh anew all the

considerations which occurred in this critical conjuncture.

* Keith, p. 473, in the notes. Anderson, vol. iv. p, 26.

** Jebb’s Collection, vol. i. p. 420.

*** Cabala, p. 140.

He represented, that the party which had dethroned Mary, and had at

present assumed the government of Scotland, were always attached to the

English alliance, and were engaged, by all the motives of religion

and of interest, to persevere in their connection with Elizabeth: that

though Murray and his friends might complain of some unkind usage during

their banishment in England, they would easily forget these grounds of

quarrel, when they reflected, that Elizabeth was the only ally on whom

they could safely rely, and that their own queen, by her attachment to

the Catholic faith, and by her other connections, excluded them entirely

from the friendship of France, and even from that of Spain: that Mary,

on the other hand, even before her violent breach with her Protestant

subjects, was in secret entirely governed by the counsels of the house

of Guise, much more would she implicitly comply with their views, when,

by her own ill conduct, the power of that family and of the zealous

Catholics was become her sole resource and security: that her

pretensions to the English crown would render her a dangerous instrument

in their hands; and, were she once able to suppress the Protestants in

her own kingdom, she would unite the Scottish and English Catholics,

with those of all foreign states, in a confederacy against the religion

and government of England; that it behoved Elizabeth, therefore, to

proceed with caution in the design of restoring her rival to the throne;

and to take care, both that this enterprise, if undertaken, should

be effected by English forces alone, and that full securities should

beforehand be provided for the reformers and the reformation in

Scotland: that, above all, it was necessary to guard carefully the

person of that princess; lest, finding this unexpected reserve in the

English friendship, she should suddenly take the resolution of flying

into France, and should attempt by foreign force to recover possession

of her authority: that her desperate fortunes and broken reputation

fitted her for any attempt; and her resentment, when she should find

herself thus deserted by the queen, would concur with her ambition and

her bigotry, and render her an unrelenting, as well as powerful enemy

to the English government: that if she were once abroad, in the hands

of enterprising Catholics, the attack on England would appear to her

as easy as that on Scotland; and the only method, she must imagine of

recovering her native kingdom, would be to acquire that crown to which

she would deem herself equally entitled: that a neutrality in such

interesting situations, though it might be pretended, could never,

without the most extreme danger, be upheld by the queen; and the

detention of Mary was equally requisite whether the power of England

were to be employed in her favor, or against her: that nothing, indeed,

was more becoming a great prince than generosity; yet the suggestions

of this noble principle could never, without imprudence, be consulted in

such delicate circumstances as those in which the queen was at present

placed; where her own safety and the interests of her people were

intimately concerned in every resolution which she embraced: that

though the example of successful rebellion, especially in a neighboring

country, could nowise be agreeable to any sovereign, yet Mary’s

imprudence had been so great, perhaps her crimes so enormous, that the

insurrection of subjects, after such provocation, could no longer

be regarded as a precedent against other princes: that it was first

necessary for Elizabeth to ascertain, in a regular and satisfactory

manner, the extent of Mary’s guilt, and thence to determine the degree

of protection which she ought to afford her against her discontented

subjects: that as no glory could surpass that of defending oppressed

innocence, it was equally infamous to patronize vice and murder on the

throne; and the contagion of such dishonor would extend itself to all

who countenanced or supported it: and that if the crimes of the Scottish

princess should, on inquiry, appear as great and certain as was affirmed

and believed, every measure against her, which policy should dictate,

would thence be justified; or if she should be found innocent, every

enterprise which friendship should inspire would be acknowledged

laudable and glorious.

Agreeably to these views, Elizabeth resolved to proceed in a seemingly

generous, but really cautious manner with the queen of Scots; and she

immediately sent orders to Lady Scrope, sister to the duke of Norfolk,

a lady who lived in the neighborhood, to attend on that princess. Soon

after, she despatched to her Lord Scrope himself, warden of the marches,

and Sir Francis Knolles, vice-chamberlain. They found Mary already

lodged in the Castle of Carlisle; and after expressing the queen’s

sympathy with her in her late misfortunes, they told her, that her

request of being allowed to visit their sovereign, and of being admitted

to her presence, could not at present be complied with: till she had

cleared herself of her husband’s murder, of which she was so strongly

accused, Elizabeth could not without dishonor show her any countenance,

or appear indifferent to the assassination of so near a kinsman.[*]

* Anderson, vol. iv. p. 54, 66, 82, 83, 86.

So unexpected a check threw Mary into tears: and the necessity of her

situation extorted from her a declaration, that she would willingly

justify herself to her sister from all imputations, and would submit

her cause to the arbitration of so good a friend.[*] Two days after, she

sent Lord Herreis to London with a letter to the same purpose.

This concession, which Mary could scarcely avoid without an

acknowledgment of guilt, was the point expected and desired by

Elizabeth: she immediately despatched Midlemore to the regent of

Scotland; requiring him both to desist from the further prosecution of

his queen’s party, and to send some persons to London to justify his

conduct with regard to her. Murray might justly be startled at receiving

a message so violent and imperious; but as his domestic enemies were

numerous and powerful, and England was the sole ally which he could

expect among foreign nations, he was resolved rather to digest the

affront, than provoke Elizabeth by a refusal. He also considered, that

though that queen had hitherto appeared partial to Mary, many political

motives evidently engaged her to support the king’s cause in Scotland;

and it was not to be doubted but so penetrating a princess would in the

end discover this interest, and would at least afford him a patient and

equitable hearing. He therefore replied, that he would himself take a

journey to England, attended by other commissioners, and would willingly

submit the determination of his cause to Elizabeth.[**]

Lord Herreis now perceived that his mistress had advanced too far in

her concessions: he endeavored to maintain, that Mary could not, without

diminution of her royal dignity, submit to a contest with her rebellious

subjects before a foreign prince: and he required either present aid

from England, or liberty for his queen to pass over into France. Being

pressed, however, with the former agreement before the English council,

he again renewed his consent; but in a few days he began anew to recoil;

and it was with some difficulty that he was brought to acquiesce in the

first determination.[***] These fluctuations, which were incessantly

renewed, showed his visible reluctance to the measures pursued by the

court of England.

* Anderson, vol. iv. p. 10, 55, 87.

** Anderson, vol. iv. p. 13-16.

*** Anderson, vol. iv. p. 16-20.

The queen of Scots discovered no less aversion to the trial proposed;

and it required all the artifice and prudence of Elizabeth to make her

persevere in the agreement to which she had at first consented. This

latter princess still said to her, that she desired not without Mary’s

consent and approbation to enter into the question, and pretended only

as a friend to hear her justification: that she was confident there

would be found no difficulty in refuting all the calumnies of her

enemies; and even if her apology should fall short of full conviction,

Elizabeth was determined to support her cause, and procure her some

reasonable terms of accommodation; and that it was never meant, that she

should be cited to a trial on the accusation of her rebellious subjects;

but, on the contrary, that they should be summoned to appear, and to

justify themselves for their conduct towards her.[*] Allured by these

plausible professions, the queen of Scots agreed to vindicate herself by

her own commissioners, before commissioners appointed by Elizabeth.

During these transactions, Lord Scrope and Sir Francis Knolles, who

resided with Mary at Carlisle, had leisure to study her character, and

to make report of it to Elizabeth. Unbroken by her misfortunes, resolute

in her purpose, active in her enterprises, she aspired to nothing but

victory; and was determined to endure any extremity, to undergo any

difficulty, and to try every fortune, rather than abandon her cause, or

yield the superiority to her enemies. Eloquent, insinuating, affable,

she had already convinced all those who approached her, of the innocence

of her past conduct; and as she declared her fixed purpose to require

aid of her friends all over Europe, and even to have recourse to

infidels and barbarians, rather than fail of vengeance against her

persecutors, it was easy to foresee the danger to which her charms, her

spirit, her address, if allowed to operate with their full force, would

expose them.[**] The court of England, therefore, who, under pretence

of guarding her, had already in effect detained her prisoner, were

determined to watch her with still greater vigilance. As Carlisle,

by its situation on the borders, afforded her great opportunities

of contriving her escape, they removed her to Bolton, a seat of Lord

Scrope’s in Yorkshire; and the issue of the controversy between her

and the Scottish nation was regarded as a subject more momentous

to Elizabeth’s security and interests than it had hitherto been

apprehended.

* Anderson, vol. iv. p. 11, 12, 13, 109, 110.

** Anderson, vol. iv. p. 54, 71, 72, 74, 78, 92.

The Commissioners appointed by the English court for the examination of

this great cause, were the duke of Norfolk, the earl of Sussex, and Sir

Ralph Sadler; and York was named as the place of conference. Lesley,

bishop of Ross, the lords Herreis, Levingstone, and Boyde, with three

persons more, appeared as commissioners from the queen of Scots. The

earl of Murray, regent, the earl of Morton, the bishop of Orkney, Lord

Lindesey, and the abbot of Dunfermling were appointed commissioners from

the king and kingdom of Scotland. Secretary Lidington, George Buchanan,

the famous poet and historian, with some others, were named as their

assistants.

It was a great circumstance in Elizabeth’s glory, that she was thus

chosen umpire between the factions of a neighboring kingdom, which

had during many centuries entertained the most violent jealousy and

animosity against England; and her felicity was equally rare, in having

the fortunes and fame of so dangerous a rival, who had long given

her the greatest inquietude, now entirely at her disposal. Some

circumstances of her late conduct had discovered a bias towards the side

of Mary: her prevailing interests led her to favor the enemies of that

princess: the professions of impartiality which she had made were open

and frequent; and she had so far succeeded, that each side accused her

commissioners of partiality towards their adversaries.[*] She herself

appears, by the instructions given them, to have fixed no plan for the

decision; but she knew that the advantages which she should reap must

be great, whatever issue the cause might take. If Mary’s crimes could be

ascertained by undoubted proof, she could forever blast the reputation

of that princess, and might justifiably detain her forever a prisoner

in England: if the evidence fell short of conviction, it was intended

to restore her to the throne, but with such strict limitations, as would

leave Elizabeth perpetual arbiter of all differences between the

parties in Scotland, and render her in effect absolute mistress of the

kingdom.[**]

* Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 40.

** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 14, 15, etc. Goodall, vol.

ii p. 110.

Mary’s commissioners, before they gave in their complaint, against her

enemies in Scotland, entered a protest, that their appearance in

the cause should nowise affect the independence of her crown, or

be construed as a mark of subordination to England: the English

commissioners received this protest, but with a reserve to the claim of

England. The complaint of that princess was next read, and contained a

detail of the injuries which she had suffered since her marriage with

Bothwell: that her subjects had taken arms against her, on pretence of

freeing her from captivity; that when she put herself into their hands,

they had committed her to close custody in Lochlevin; had placed her

son, an infant, on her throne; had again taken arms against her

after her deliverance from prison; had rejected all her proposals for

accommodation, had given battle to her troops; and had obliged her, for

the safety of her person, to take shelter in England.[*] The earl

of Murray, in answer to this complaint, gave a summary and imperfect

account of the late transactions: that the earl of Bothwell, the known

murderer of the late king, had, a little after committing that crime,

seized the person of the queen and led her to Dunbar; that he acquired

such influence over her as to gain her consent to marry him, and he had

accordingly procured a divorce from his former wife, and had pretended

to celebrate his nuptials with the queen; that the scandal of this

transaction, the dishonor which it brought on the nation, the danger to

which the infant prince was exposed from the attempts of that audacious

man, had obliged the nobility to take arms, and oppose his criminal

enterprises; that after Mary, in order to save him, had thrown herself

into their hands, she still discovered such a violent attachment to him,

that they found it necessary, for their own and the public safety,

to confine her person during a season, till Bothwell and the other

murderers of her husband could be tried and punished for their crimes;

and that during this confinement she had voluntarily, without compulsion

or violence, merely from disgust at the inquietude and vexations

attending power, resigned her crown to her only son, and had appointed

the earl of Murray regent during the minority.[**]

* Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 52. Goodall, vol. ii. p.

128. Haynes, p. 478.

** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 64, et seq. Goodall, vol.

ii. p. 144.

The queen’s answer to this apology was obvious: that she did not know,

and never could suspect, that Bothwell, who had been acquitted by a

jury, and recommended to her by all the nobility for her husband,

was the murderer of the king; that she ever was, and still continues

desirous, that, if he be guilty, he may be brought to condign

punishment; that her resignation of the crown was extorted from her

by the well-grounded fears of her life, and even by direct menaces

of violence; and that Throgmorton, the English ambassador, as well as

others of her friends, had advised her to sign that paper, as the only

means of saving herself from the last extremity, and had assured her,

that a consent, given under these circumstances, could never have any

validity.[*]

So far the queen of Scots seemed plainly to have the advantage in the

contest; and the English commissioners might have been surprised that

Murray had made so weak a defence, and had suppressed all the material

imputations against that princess, on which his party had ever so

strenuously insisted, had not some private conferences previously

informed them of the secret. Mary’s commissioners had boasted that

Elizabeth, from regard to her kinswoman, and from her desire of

maintaining the rights of sovereigns, was determined, how criminal

soever the conduct of that princess might appear, to restore her to the

throne;[**] and Murray, reflecting on some past measures of the English

court, began to apprehend that there were but too just grounds for these

expectations. He believed that Mary, if he would agree to conceal the

most violent part of the accusation against her, would submit to any

reasonable terms of accommodation; but if he once proceeded so far as to

charge her with the whole of her guilt, no composition could afterwards

take place; and should she ever be restored, either by the power of

Elizabeth or the assistance of her other friends, he and his party must

be exposed to her severe and implacable vengeance.[***] He resolved,

therefore, not to venture rashly on a measure which it would be

impossible for him ever to recall; and he privately paid a visit to

Norfolk and the other English commissioners, confessed his scruples,

laid before them the evidence of the queen’s guilt, and desired to have

some security for Elizabeth’s protection, in case that evidence should,

upon examination, appear entirely satisfactory. Norfolk was not secretly

displeased with these scruples of the regent.[****]

* Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 60, et seq. Goodall, vol.

ii. p. 162.

** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 45. Goodall, vol. ii. p.

127.

*** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 47, 48. Goodall, vol. ii.

p. 159.

**** Crawford, p. 92. Melvil, p. 94, 95. Haynes, p. 574.

He had ever been a partisan of the queen of Scots. Secretary Lidington,

who began also to incline to that party, and was a man of singular

address and capacity, had engaged him to embrace further views in

her favor, and even to think of espousing her: and though that duke

confessed[*] that the proofs against Mary seemed to him unquestionable,

he encouraged Murray in his present resolution, not to produce them

publicly in the conferences before the English commissioners.[**]

Norfolk, however, was obliged to transmit to court the queries proposed

by the regent. These queries consisted of four particulars: Whether the

English commissioners had authority from their sovereign to pronounce

sentence against Mary, in case her guilt should be fully proved before

them? Whether they would promise to exercise that authority, and proceed

to an actual sentence? Whether the queen of Scots, if she were found

guilty, should be delivered into the hands of the regent, or, at least,

be so secured in England, that she never should be able to disturb the

tranquillity of Scotland? and, Whether Elizabeth would also, in that

case, promise to acknowledge the young king, and protect the regent in

his authority?[***]

Elizabeth, when these queries, with the other transactions, were laid

before her, began to think that they pointed towards a conclusion more

decisive and more advantageous than she had hitherto expected. She

determined therefore to bring the matter into full light; and, under

pretext that the distance from her person retarded the proceedings

of her commissioners, she ordered them to come to London, and there

continue the conferences. On their appearance, she immediately joined in

commission with them some of the most considerable of her council; Sir

Nicholas Bacon, lord keeper, the earls of Arundel and Leicester, Lord

Clinton, admiral, and Sir William Cecil, secretary.[****] The queen of

Scots, who knew nothing of these secret motives, and who expected that

fear or decency would still restrain Murray from proceeding to any

violent accusation against her, expressed an entire satisfaction in this

adjournment; and declared that the affair, being under the immediate

inspection of Elizabeth, was now in the hands where she most desired to

rest it.[v].

* Anderson, vol., iv. part ii. p. 77.

** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 57, 77. State Trials, vol.

i. p. 76

*** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 55. Goodall, vol. ii. p.

130.

**** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 99.

v Anderson, vol iv. part ii. p. 95. Goodall, vol. ii. p

177, 179.

The conferences were accordingly continued at Hampton Court; and Mary’s

commissioners, as before, made no scruple to be present at them.

The queen, meanwhile, gave a satisfactory answer to all Murray’s

demands; and declared that, though she wished and hoped from the present

inquiry to be entirely convinced of Mary’s innocence, yet if the event

should prove contrary, and if that princess should appear guilty of

her husband’s murder, she should, for her own part, deem her ever after

unworthy of a throne.[*] The regent, encouraged by this declaration,

opened more fully his charge against the queen of Scots; and after

expressing his reluctance to proceed to that extremity, and protesting

that nothing but the necessity of self-defence, which must not be

abandoned for any delicacy, could have engaged him in such a measure, he

proceeded to accuse her in plain terms of participation and consent in

the assassination of the king.[**] The earl of Lenox too appeared before

the English commissioners, and, imploring vengeance for the murder

of his son, accused Mary as an accomplice with Bothwell in that

enormity.[***]

When this charge was so unexpectedly given in, and copies of it

were transmitted to the bishop of Ross, Lord Herreis, and the other

commissioners of Mary, they absolutely refused to return an answer;

and they grounded their silence on very extraordinary reasons: they had

orders, they said, from their mistress, if any thing were advanced that

might touch her honor, not to make any defence, as she was a sovereign

princess, and could not be subject to any tribunal; and they required

that she should previously be admitted to Elizabeth’s presence, to whom,

and to whom alone, she was determined to justify her innocence.[****]

* Goodall, vol. ii. p. 199.

** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 115, et seq. Goodall, vol.

ii. p. 206.

*** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 122. Goodall, vol. ii. p.

208.

**** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 125, et seq. Goodall,

vol. ii. p. 184, 211, 217.

They forgot that the conferences were at first begun, and were still

continued, with no other view than to clear her from the accusations of

her enemies; that Elizabeth had ever pretended to enter into them only

as her friend, by her own consent and approbation, not as assuming any

jurisdiction over her; that this princess had from the beginning refused

to admit her to her presence, till she should vindicate herself from the

crimes imputed to her; that she had therefore discovered no new signs of

partiality by her perseverance in that resolution; and that though she

had granted an audience to the earl of Murray and his colleagues, she

had previously conferred the same honor on Mary’s commissioners;[*] and

her conduct was so far entirely equal to both parties.[**] [11]

As the commissioners of the queen of Scots refused to give in any answer

to Murray’s charge, the necessary consequence seemed to be, that there

could be no further proceedings in the conference. But though this

silence might be interpreted as a presumption against her, it did not

fully answer the purpose of those English ministers who were enemies to

that princess. They still desired to have in their hands the proofs of

her guilt; and in order to draw them with decency from the regent, a

judicious artifice was employed by Elizabeth. Murray was called before

the English commissioners, and reproved by them, in the queen’s name,

for the atrocious imputations which he had the temerity to throw upon

his sovereign; but though the earl of Murray, they added, and the other

commissioners, had so far forgotten the duty of allegiance to their

prince, the queen never would overlook what she owed to her friend, her

neighbor, and her kinswoman; and she therefore desired to know what they

could say in their own justification.[***] Murray, thus urged, made no

difficulty in producing the proofs of his charge against the queen of

Scots; and among the rest, some love-letters and sonnets of hers to

Bothwell, written all in her own hand, and two other papers, one written

in her own hand, another subscribed by her, and written by the earl of

Huntley; each of which contained a promise of marriage with Bothwell,

made before the pretended trial and acquittal of that nobleman.

* Lesley’s Negotiations in Anderson, vol. iii. p. 25.

Haynes, p. 487.

** See note K, at the end of the volume.

*** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 147. Goodall, vol. ii. p.

233.

All these important papers had been kept by Bothwell in a silver box or

casket, which had been given him by Mary, and which had belonged to her

first husband, Francis; and though the princess had enjoined him to burn

the letters as soon as he had read them, he had thought proper carefully

to preserve them, as pledges of her fidelity, and had committed them

to the custody of Sir James Balfour, deputy governor of the Castle of

Edinburgh. When that fortress was besieged by the associated lords,

Bothwell sent a servant to receive the casket from the hands of the

deputy governor. Balfour delivered it to the messenger; but as he had

at that time received some disgust from Bothwell, and was secretly

negotiating an agreement with the ruling party, he took care, by

conveying private intelligence to the earl of Morton, to make the papers

be intercepted by him, They contained incontestable proofs of Mary’s

criminal correspondence with Bothwell, of her consent to the king’s

murder, and of her concurrence in the violence which Bothwell

pretended to commit upon her.[*] Murray fortified this evidence by some

testimonies of corresponding facts;[**] and he added, some time after,

the dying confession of one Hubert, or French Paris, as he was called, a

servant of Bothwell’s, who had been executed for the king’s murder, and

who directly charged the queen with her being accessory to that criminal

enterprise.[***]

Mary’s commissioners had used every expedient to ward this blow, which

they saw coming upon them, and against which, it appears, they were not

provided with any proper defence. As soon as Murray opened his

charge, they endeavored to turn the conferences from an inquiry into

a negotiation; and though informed by the English commissioners, that

nothing could be more dishonorable for their mistress, than to enter

into a treaty with such undutiful subjects, before she had justified

herself from those enormous imputations which had been thrown upon her,

they still insisted that Elizabeth should settle terms of accommodation

between Mary and her enemies in Scotland.[****] They maintained, that

till their mistress had given in her answer to Murray’s charge, his

proofs could neither be called for nor produced:[v] and finding that

the English commissioners were still determined to proceed in the method

which had been projected, they finally broke off the conferences, and

never would make any reply.

* Anderson, vol. ii. p. 115. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 1.

** Anderson, vol. ii. part ii. p. 165, etc. Goodall, vol.

ii.

*** Anderson, vol. ii. p. 192. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 76.

**** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 135, 139. Goodall, vol.

ii.

v Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 139, 145. Goodall, vol. ii.

These papers, at least translations of them, have since been published.

The objections made to their authenticity are in general of small force:

but were they ever so specious, they cannot now be hearkened to; since

Mary, at the time when the truth could have been fully cleared, did in

effect ratify the evidence against her, by recoiling from the inquiry

at the very critical moment, and refusing to give an answer to the

accusation of her enemies.[*] [12]

But Elizabeth, though she had seen enough for her own satisfaction, was

determined that the most eminent persons of her court should also be

acquainted with these transactions, and should be convinced of

the equity of her proceedings. She ordered her privy council to be

assembled; and, that she might render the matter more solemn and

authentic, she summoned along with them the earls of Northumberland,

Westmoreland, Shrewsbury, Worcester, Huntingdon, and Warwick. All

the proceedings of the English commissioners were read to them: the

evidences produced by Murray were perused: a great number of letters

written by Mary to Elizabeth were laid before them, and the handwriting

compared with that of the letters delivered in by the regent: the

refusal of the queen of Scots’ commissioners to make any reply was

related: and on the whole, Elizabeth told them, that as she had from

the first thought it improper that Mary, after such horrid crimes were

imputed to her, should be admitted to her presence, before she had in

some measure justified herself from the charge, so now, when her guilt

was confirmed by so many evidences, and all answer refused, she must,

for her part, persevere more steadily in that resolution.[**] Elizabeth

next called in the queen of Scots’ commissioners; and after observing,

that she deemed it much more decent for their mistress to continue

the conferences, than to require the liberty of justifying herself in

person, she told them, that Mary might either send her reply by a person

whom she trusted, or deliver it herself to some English nobleman, whom

Elizabeth should appoint to wait upon her: but as to her resolution of

making no reply at all, she must regard it as the strongest confession

of guilt, nor could they ever be deemed her friends who advised her to

that method of proceeding.[***] These topics she enforced still more

strongly in a letter which she wrote to Mary herself.[****]

* See note L, at the end of the volume.

** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 170, etc. Goodall, vol.

ii. p. 254.

*** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 179, etc. Goodall, vol.

ii p. 268.

**** Anderson, vol. iv part ii. p. 183. Goodall, vol. ii. p.

269.

The queen of Scots had no other subterfuge from these pressing

remonstrances, than still to demand a personal interview with Elizabeth:

a concession which, she was sensible, would never be granted;[*] because

Elizabeth knew that this expedient could decide nothing; because it

brought matters to extremity, which that princess desired to avoid;

and because it had been refused from the beginning, even before the

commencement of the conferences. In order to keep herself better in

countenance, Mary thought of another device. Though the conferences were

broken off, she ordered her commissioners to accuse the earl of

Murray and his associates as the murderers of the king:[**] but this

accusation, coming so late, being extorted merely by a complaint of

Murray’s, and being unsupported by any proof, could only be regarded

as an angry recrimination upon her enemy.[***] [13] She also desired

to have copies of the papers given in by the regent; but as she

still persisted in her resolution to make no reply before the English

commissioners, this demand was finally refused her.[****] [14]

* Cabala, p. 157.

** Goodall, vol. ii. p. 280.

*** See note M, at the end of the volume.

**** Goodall, vol. ii. p. 253, 283, 289, 310, 311. Haynes,

vol. i. p. 492. See note N, at the end of the volume.

As Mary had thus put an end to the conferences, the regent expressed

great impatience to return into Scotland; and he complained, that his

enemies had taken advantage of his absence, and had thrown the whole

government into confusion. Elizabeth therefore dismissed him; and

granted him a loan of five thousand pounds, to bear the charges of his

journey.[*] During the conferences at York, the duke of Chatelrault

arrived at London, in passing from France; and as the queen knew that he

was engaged in Mary’s party, and had very plausible pretensions to the

regency of the king of Scots, she thought proper to detain him till

after Murray’s departure. But notwithstanding these marks of favor, and

some other assistance which she secretly gave this latter nobleman,[**]

she still declined acknowledging the young king, or treating with Murray

as regent of Scotland.

* Rymer, tom. xv. p. 677.

* MS. in the Advocates’ library. A. 3, 29, p. 128, 129, 130,

from Cott. lab. Cal. c. 1.

Orders were given for removing the queen of Scots from Bolton, a place

surrounded with Catholics, to Tutbury, in the county of Stafford, where

she was put under the custody of the earl of Shrewsbury. Elizabeth

entertained hopes that this princess, discouraged by her misfortunes,

and confounded by the late transactions, would be glad to secure a safe

retreat from all the tempests with which she had been agitated; and she

promised to bury every thing in oblivion, provided Mary would agree,

either voluntary to resign her crown, or to associate her son with

her in the government; and the administration to remain, during his

minority, in the hands of the earl of Murray.[*] But that high-spirited

princess refused all treaty upon such terms, and declared that her

last words should be those of a queen of Scotland. Besides many other

reasons, she said, which fixed her in that resolution, she knew, that if

in the present emergence she made such concessions, her submission would

be universally deemed an acknowledgment of guilt, and would ratify all

the calumnies of her enemies.[**]

* Goodall, vol. ii. p. 295.

** Goodall. vol. ii. p. 301.

Mary still insisted upon this alternative; either that Elizabeth should

assist her in recovering her authority, or should give her liberty to

retire into France, and make trial of the friendship of other princes:

and as she asserted, that she had come voluntarily into England, invited

by many former professions of amity, she thought that one or other of

these requests could not, without the most extreme injustice, be refused

her. But Elizabeth, sensible of the danger which attended both these

proposals, was secretly resolved to detain her still a captive; and as

her retreat into England had been little voluntary, her claim upon the

queen’s generosity appeared much less urgent than she was willing to

pretend. Necessity, it was thought, would to the prudent justify her

detention: her past misconduct would apologize for it to the equitable:

and though it was foreseen, that compassion for Mary’s situation, joined

to her intrigues and insinuating behavior, would, while she remained in

England, excite the zeal of her friends, especially of the Catholics,

these inconveniences were deemed much inferior to those which attended

any other expedient. Elizabeth trusted also to her own address,

for eluding all these difficulties: she purposed to avoid breaking

absolutely with the queen of Scots, to keep her always in hopes of an

accommodation, to negotiate perpetually with her, and still to throw the

blame of not coming to any conclusion, either on unforeseen accidents,

or on the obstinacy and perverseness of others.

We come now to mention some English affairs which we left behind us,

that we might not interrupt our narrative of the events in Scotland,

which formed so material a part of the present reign. The term fixed by

the treaty of Chateau-Cambresis for the restitution of Calais, expired

in 1567; and Elizabeth, after making her demand at the gates of that

city, sent Sir Thomas Smith to Paris; and that minister, in conjunction

with Sir Henry Norris, her resident ambassador, enforced her

pretensions. Conferences were held on that head, without coming to any

conclusion satisfactory to the English. The chancellor, De L’Hospital,

told the English ambassadors, that though France by an article of the

treaty was obliged to restore Calais on the expiration of eight years,

there was another article of the same treaty, which now deprived

Elizabeth of any right that could accrue to her by that engagement;

that it was agreed, if the English should, during the interval, commit

hostilities upon France, they should instantly forfeit all claim to

Calais; and the taking possession of Havre and Dieppe, with whatever

pretences that measure might be covered, was a plain violation of the

peace between the nations: that though these places were not entered by

force, but put into Elizabeth’s hands by the governors, these governors

were rebels; and a correspondence with such traitors was the most

flagrant injury that could be committed on any sovereign: that in the

treaty which ensued upon the expulsion of the English from Normandy, the

French ministers had absolutely refused to make any mention of Calais,

and had thereby declared their intention to take advantage of the title

which had accrued to the crown of France: and that though a general

clause had been inserted, implying a reservation of all claims, this

concession could not avail the English, who at that time possessed no

just claim to Calais, and had previously forfeited all right to

that fortress.[*] The queen was nowise surprised at hearing these

allegations; and as she knew that the French court intended not from

the first to make restitution, much less after they could justify their

refusal by such plausible reasons, she thought it better for the present

to acquiesce in the loss, than to pursue a doubtful title by a war both

dangerous and expensive, as well as unseasonable.[**]

* Haynes, p. 587.

** Camden, p. 406.

Elizabeth entered anew into negotiations for espousing the archduke

Charles; and she seems, at this time, to have had no great motive of

policy which might induce her to make this fallacious offer: but as she

was very rigorous in the terms insisted on, and would not agree that

the archduke, if he espoused her, should enjoy any power or title in

England, and even refused him the exercise of his religion, the

treaty came to nothing; and that prince, despairing of success in his

addresses, married the daughter of Albert, duke of Bavaria.[*]

* Camden, p. 407, 408.