Chapter XXV: Book XVII: , chapter 36, 37

The Court stayed in Edinburgh during the winter. The gaiety of the Queen and her courtiers gave much offence to Knox and the reformed preachers; and they were extremely outspoken touching the excessive banqueting and dancing of the Court. It was said that some of the dances then fashionable in the Queen’s Court were indecorous and immoral, and that it was against these that Knox declaimed. It is evident, however, that from the first the reformed clergy of Scotland went too far in limiting and in denouncing almost every form of amusement. But Knox had also a suspicion that Queen Mary’s dancing was the expression of her heterodoxy and malignancy. As, “among other things, he was assured,” he said in a sermon, “that the Queen had danced excessively till after midnight, because she had received letters that persecution was begun in France, and that her uncles were beginning to stir their tails, and to trouble the whole realm of France.” When the Queen heard of this sermon, she sent for Knox, and accused him of having spoken irreverently of the Queen, of endeavouring to make her an object of hatred and contempt amongst her people, and of having exceeded the limits of his text. In self-defence, the Reformer proposed to rehearse from memory what he had said in the pulpit; and proceeded to deliver one of the most plain and vehement harangues ever uttered in the presence of a monarch. “The complaint of Solomon is this day most true, to wit: That violence and oppression do occupy the throne of God here in this earth: for, while murderers, blood-thirsty men, oppressors, and malefactors dare be bold to present themselves before kings and princes, and the poor saints of God are banished and exiled, what shall we say? But that the devil has taken possession in the throne of God, which ought to be fearful to all wicked doers, and a refuge to the innocent and oppressed. And how can it be otherwise? For princes will not understand; they will not be learned as God commands them. But God’s law they despise, His statutes and holy ordinances they will not understand; for in fiddling and flinging they are more exercised than in reading and hearing God’s most blessed word; and fiddlers and flatterers are more precious in their eyes than men of wisdom and gravity, who by wholesome admonition might beat down into them some part of that vanity and pride whereinto all are born, but in princes it takes deep root and strength by wicked education. And dancing, Madam, I said, that albeit in Scripture I find no praise of it, and in profane writings, that it is termed the gesture rather of them that are mad and in phrensy than of sober men: yet I do not utterly condemn it, provided ♦two vices be avoided; the former, that the principal vocation of those who use that exercise be not neglected for the pleasure of dancing, and secondly, that they dance not, as the Philistines their fathers, for the pleasure that they take in the displeasure of God’s people.” The Queen looked around and said――“Your words are sharp enough as you have spoken them; but yet they were told to me in another manner. I know that my uncles and you are not of one religion, and therefore I cannot blame you, albeit you have no good opinion of them.”¹

♦ “too” replaced with “two”

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 330‒335.

The idea of religious toleration was adopted by the Protestants in practice, no more than it was by the Roman Catholics. The only difference between them was, that the first had introduced a principle which would ultimately develop a spirit of toleration; whereas on this point the principle of Romanism never changes, however circumstances may modify its practical operation. As might naturally be expected there was still a considerable section of the people unconverted to the Protestant opinions, especially in the north, where the power of the local Catholic ruler was only newly broken. In several other quarters of the kingdom, where the influence of the local chief was on the side of the old religion, the Catholic worship still prevailed. The Protestant clergy insisted that the laws against the Romanists should be enforced; but the government was negligent, and the preachers threatened to take the matter into their own hands; as they firmly believed themselves to be justified according to the command of God to extinguish all idolatry. They apprehended some priests in the west, and intimated to others that punishment awaited them. The Queen again sent for Knox and once more tried her wit and policy upon him; and this time she managed him far better than usual, and the two parted on good terms. She promised to summon the offending Catholics, and to show the Reformer that she would administer justice; and he blessed her and departed.¹ The Catholics were accordingly summoned to appear at Edinburgh before the Justiciary Court on the 19th of May, 1563. There were about forty-eight persons brought before the court, and amongst them the Archbishop of St. Andrews. They were accused of celebrating and attending mass. Most of them were imprisoned in Edinburgh and Dumbarton, and some in other places; but none of them was executed.² It need hardly be said that the Queen was unwilling to punish the professors of her own religion, but she yielded to the clamour of the Protestants thus far, for the sake of other advantages.

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 370‒376; _Diurnal of Occurrents_,
pages 75‒76.

² Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I., page 472; _Diurnal_,
page 75; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages
160‒161.

Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 26th of May, 1563, but it did little to strengthen the walls of the reformed Church. Articles were presented for moderating the excess of dress, and for the reformation of other enormities; but they were all shuffled aside. The Acts of 1560 which abolished Catholicism were not even mentioned. But an Act was passed which gave full protection to all who had been connected with the rebellious proceedings between the 6th of March, 1558, and the 1st of September, 1561. This Act afforded much satisfaction to many of the nobles, as it in a measure secured to them the lands on which they had laid hands during the period of conflict and confusion: but the preachers were not pleased with it, nor with any of the acts of this parliament. Other enactments were passed touching the punishment of witchcraft, adultery, and the restitution of the glebes and manses to the ministers of the Church;¹ yet this did little to appease the wrath of Knox. Before parliament dissolved, he preached a sermon in the presence of the nobles, and spoke very plainly. “The Queen, say ye, will not agree with us: Ask ye of her that which by God’s word ye may justly require, and if she will not agree with you in God, ye are not bound to agree with her in the devil. Let her plainly understand so far of your minds, and steal not from your former stoutness in God, and ye shall prosper in your enterprises. But I can see nothing but such a recoiling from Christ Jesus, as the man that first and most speedily fleeth Christ’s banner, holds himself most happy. Yea, I hear that some say, that we have nothing of our religion established either by law or parliament. Albeit that the malicious words of such can neither hurt the truth of God, nor yet us who thereupon depend, yet the speaker for his treason committed against God, and against this poor commonwealth, deserves the gallows. For our religion being commanded, and so established by God, was accepted within this realm in public parliament; and if they will say that was no parliament, we must, and will say, and also prove, that that parliament was as lawful as ever any that passed before it within the realm.... And now, my Lords, to put an end to all, I hear of the Queen’s marriage: dukes, brethren, to emperors and kings, strive all for the best game; but this, my Lords, will I say (note the day, and bear witness after) whensoever the nobility of Scotland professing the Lord Jesus, consents that an infidel (and all papists are infidels), shall be head to our sovereign, ye do so far as in ye lieth to banish Christ Jesus from this realm; ye bring God’s vengeance upon the country, a plague upon yourselves, and perchance ye shall do small comfort to your sovereign.”²

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
536‒538.

² Knox, Volume II., pages 382‒386.

This came rather near an assumption of the gift of prophecy. There is an element of supreme boldness, intense earnestness, and not a little arrogance in it. But Knox had unquestionably a clearer view of the real difficulty and danger which was then menacing the reformed Church, than any other man in Scotland. That his language was strong, seething, and sometimes rebellious, must be admitted; yet underneath it all he had an unbending, unswerving, and true moral conviction, which he followed with an unflinching resoluteness of will rarely equalled. He was well aware that Catholicism in other countries was beginning to show unmistakable signs of fresh activity and power; it had reorganised its armies, and was rapidly recovering from the effects of the first shock of the Reformation; in many things indeed Catholicism had reformed itself. Though the fascinating smiles and enchantments of Queen Mary had failed to cast their spell over Knox, they had won for her the hearts of many. Day by day the prospects of the Protestants in Scotland were becoming darker; and Knox adopted a special form of prayer for the conversion of the Queen, the good of the kingdom, and the preservation of the light of the word of God.¹ The prayer for the Queen was couched in an extreme strain of phraseology, and it is not surprising that it offended her. The current of events in Scotland seemed likely soon to engulf the Protestant party and their Church in a sea of trouble. The Queen was meditating and preparing for her marriage with a branch of the Lennox family. The Earl of Lennox, after twenty years of banishment, arrived at Edinburgh on the 23rd of September, 1564. Parliament met in December and restored to him the family estates and titles. In the end of the year the General Assembly met at Edinburgh, and petitioned the Queen to put the laws in execution against the sayers and hearers of mass, who were then so numerous throughout the kingdom.²

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 387‒392, 428.

² _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 77; Keith, Volume II., page
228; 1845. _Book of the Universal Kirk_, page 53.

Henry, Lord Darnley, the eldest son of the Earl of Lennox, came to Edinburgh on the 12th of February, 1565. A few days after, he visited the Queen at Wemyss Castle in Fife; and soon found himself at a height of fortune far too dazzling for his poorly gifted nature. He was quite a youth, blooming and handsome, vain and full of ambition, but utterly void of ability and moral character; and before he had been many weeks at the Scottish court, he had made the Protestant lords his enemies. The Earls of Moray, Morton, and Glencairn disliked him; and Moray, who had been at the head of affairs since the return of the Queen from France, soon began to feel that his influence and power were slipping away. Darnley was a Roman Catholic, which further intensified the complications throughout the nation. Moray at length began to concert measures to prevent his marriage with the Queen.¹ A special meeting of the nobles and chief officers of State was held at Stirling in May 1565; and Mary announced to it her intention to marry Darnley. The Protestants became greatly alarmed. They seemed to think that a reaction was impending, and that at any moment the Queen might proclaim the restoration of Catholicism. The Queen had intended to hold a parliament at Perth to sanction her marriage; but the attitude which Moray and his party assumed, rendered the step unsafe.²

¹ Keith, Volume II., pages 263‒265, 268‒275.

² _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 334‒336;
Knox, Volume II., pages 478‒482.

The General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 23rd of June, 1565, and at once proceeded to adopt measures for the suppression of the mass and other Catholic practices. They demanded that all popery, idolatry, and jurisdiction of the Pope should be utterly extinguished throughout the kingdom, not only among the people but also in the Queen’s own person and household, without any exception. Mary’s answer to this demand was very candid. She said, that she did not believe in the Protestant religion, nor that there was anything wrong in the mass, that she believed the Catholic religion to be well grounded; and she therefore desired her subjects not to press her to receive any religion against her conscience; as she had never pressed them, they should not press her. She also stated that if she changed her religion, she would lose the friendship of the King of France and other great princes, who were her firm allies, to whom she could look for support in all her necessities and difficulties; and that she would be indeed extremely reluctant to hazard the loss of all these advantages in an instant.¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 59, 67.

Meanwhile the Earl of Moray had broken off from the court, and meditated a rebellion. On the 15th of July, he and his party met at Stirling to consult upon their project. The same day the Queen issued a proclamation at Edinburgh, announcing that she intended to make no change in religion, and intimating to all her loyal subjects to prepare themselves to attend her for fifteen days in the field, and to be ready to appear the instant they were charged. The Queen and her adherents were too active and numerous on this occasion for Moray and his party. Seven days later a general muster of the Crown vassals was ordered. Offers were made to Moray to appear before the council and obtain satisfaction; but in vain. Mary ordered her intended marriage to be publicly proclaimed; and on the 29th of July she and Darnley were joined in wedlock amid rejoicing at Holyrood.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 339, 343,
345, 346; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 79‒80.

Various rumours were afloat as to the conflict between the Queen and her nobles. Some said that it had its origin in envy, ambition, and hatred, rather than in religion. The newly married pair, however, began their reign by adopting vigorous measures. Moray and the Protestant nobles who had joined him, were declared rebels: and to crush them swiftly, the feudal vassals of the Crown were at short intervals summoned anew to muster and rally round their King and Queen. Their majesties also raised considerable sums of money from the citizens and burgesses for licenses to absent themselves from the army. The disloyal nobles, the Duke of Chatelherault, the Earls of Moray, Glencairn, Argyle, Rothes, and other barons, had mustered about a thousand of their followers. They soon found that the Queen and her party were too strong for them. Mary at this time was exceedingly well served, and the action of her government was prompt and decisive.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 347, 348,
349, 350, 353‒363; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume
III., pages 198, 200, 201, 202‒203. This old feudal mode of
raising an army then began to be felt a severe burden, and
♦people in business were glad to pay a sum of money to be
allowed to remain at home. But those who remained away from
the army without license, were brought before the courts
and fined; and it appears that a number of persons had not
answered the Queen’s calls to join the host. _Diurnal of
Occurrents_, pages 80‒81; Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_,
Volume I.

♦ “pesple” replaced with “people”

The provost of Edinburgh was an adherent of the Protestant Lords, and the Queen at once commanded the town council to discharge him from his office, and named another to be elected in his place. About the same time the court had ordered the magistrates of the capital to suspend Knox from preaching, but this the council firmly refused to do; and several of the citizens fled to the banished Lords. On the other hand, Lord George Gordon was restored to honour and to the Lordship of Gordon, by royal proclamation at Edinburgh. The Queen now recalled Bothwell, whom Moray hated, and had contrived to keep out of Scotland for several years. He was then residing in France, and landed at Eyemouth on the 17th of September. He immediately proceeded to the court, and was there graciously received by Mary, who restored him to all his hereditary titles and offices. Along with the Earl of Lennox, he was appointed commander-in-chief of the army, which the Queen and Darnley personally accompanied. The rebellious lords after various moves and efforts found themselves unable to face the royal army in the field. They retired to Dumfries, and there issued a manifesto on the 8th of September, 1565, calling upon the Protestants to rally round them. But few joined their standard. They had rashly calculated on receiving assistance from England, but none came; and on the approach of the Queen’s army, led by Bothwell, they disbanded their followers, and retired beyond the Border.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 369, 372,
379, 384; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 80‒84. In regard to
Knox the town council of Edinburgh came to this conclusion
――“On the 23rd of August, 1565, the bailies, council, and
deacons, being convened in the council-house, after long
reasoning upon the discharge of John Knox, minister, to
forbare preaching, during the stay of the king and queen in
this town, all in one voice concluded and delivers that they
will in no manner of way consent or grant that his mouth be
closed or he discharged from preaching the true word, and
therefore willed him at his pleasure, as God should move his
heart, to proceed forward in true doctrine as he had done
before, which doctrine they would approve and abide at to
their life’s end.”――_Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume
III., pages 199‒200.

The Queen and her government were now victorious, and many of the Protestants dreaded that the Reformation would soon be extinguished in Scotland. At the time there were many schemes and plots on hand among the Roman Catholic States of Europe, and more in the fountain head――the Curia of Rome――for the total overthrow of heresy and all its works. Spain was deeply interested in the recovery of Britain to the Holy See;¹ but the stream of events swept away this dream.

¹ Ranke’s _History of the Popes_, Volume I., page 406,
_et seq._

The marriage of the Queen with Darnley turned out to be extremely unfortunate. She discovered when too late that her husband was a vicious, vain, and childish fool, utterly unfitted to be her companion and guide. Their domestic quarrels soon became notorious. The Queen had several foreigners in her service. One of them named Riccio acted as her foreign secretary. He seems to have enjoyed her confidence, and was occasionally consulted by her on important matters. Darnley, however, began to think that Riccio was his enemy, and fancied that he had prevented the Queen from granting to him the Crown matrimonial. He ran from one silly thought to another, until he came to the conclusion that Riccio had frustrated his aim.¹ This is characteristic of all weak-minded and naturally vain persons. They fancy that some one has set himself purposely to defeat them; while all the time the cause of their defeat is in their own defects. The Scottish nobles at once saw Darnley’s weakness, and seeking a way to restore the rebel lords, they fixed upon him as their tool, and on Riccio as their victim.

¹ Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, pages 132‒134, 136‒140; 1827.

A parliament was summoned to meet at Edinburgh on the 4th of March, 1566, to confiscate the lands of the banished lords. They had many friends in Scotland and even in the government; but, although they had made incessant efforts to obtain pardon and to be restored, the Queen still held out against them. The Scottish nobles have never been deficient in devising bold plots for the overthrow of their enemies and the attainment of their ends. Accordingly Morton the Chancellor, Lord Ruthven, Lord Lindsay of the Byres, and others, now entered into a bond with Darnley for the murder of Riccio and the restoration of the banished Lords, Moray and his associates, and pledged themselves in return to procure for him the Crown matrimonial, on which he set so much store.¹ It is plain, however, that Darnley was a mere tool in the hands of the nobles. They had no intention of elevating him to the throne. Their chief aim was to prevent the meeting of parliament, and thus preserve intact the estates of the rebel lords. Probably they foresaw that Darnley would prove false, and thus throw himself outside the bond.

¹ _Ibid._, page 148; Keith, Volume III., pages 260‒263.

The plot was exceedingly well matured and everything was prepared for its realisation. On the 7th March, 1566, parliament was opened by the Queen in person. Darnley, instead of accompanying her, rode off to Leith to enjoy himself among his companions. The first business of the parliament was to summon the exiled nobles to appear before it on the 12th of March; but they were already moving towards Edinburgh.

The evening of the 9th of March was fixed by the conspirators for the consummation of their dismal deed. The Earl of Morton commanded a body of one hundred and sixty armed men, and took possession of the inner court of the palace and secured all the gates; a party of these men took up their position in the royal audience chamber on the ground floor; thence Darnley ascended to the Queen’s apartments and Lord Ruthven followed him. They found their victim sitting with his cap on his head in her Majesty’s presence, along with a small social party in the Queen’s supping-room. Some parley and sharp talk passed between the Queen and Ruthven; but suddenly more of the conspirators rushed in, instantly the tables and chairs were overturned in the scuffle, and David Riccio was seized and dragged to an outer room, and there stabbed to death. A guard was placed over the Queen; but in spite of their vigilance several gentlemen escaped, and warned the citizens of Edinburgh. The common bell was wrung, and the people rushed to the palace with torch lights. They demanded the instant deliverance of the Queen; but she was not permitted to speak to them: Darnley appeared and assured the citizens that the Queen was quite safe, and commanded them to go home. Darnley and Ruthven then prepared two proclamations to be issued next day in the name of the King, the one ordering the citizens of Edinburgh to keep order in the streets, and the other dissolving the parliament, and commanding all the members to leave the city within three hours, except those whom the King might request to remain. Lord Ruthven placed men to watch the gates and all the private passages; but in spite of the utmost vigilance of the conspirators, the Earls of Bothwell and Huntly managed to escape during the night.¹

¹ Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, page 149; _Diurnal of
Occurrents_, pages 89‒90; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_,
Volume III., page 214; Keith, Volume II., pages 414‒418.

The following day, Sunday, the banished lords arrived in the evening, and were ready to make the most of the peculiar circumstances. They took possession of Edinburgh, and frustrated the proceedings of parliament. But Mary soon disengaged her husband from the nobles, who had murdered her favourite, and there can be no doubt that he was duped by the Queen as well as by the nobles. He had neither the ability, the resolution, nor even the recognised rough honesty of his day, to carry him through such a plot. Mary and he slipped out a little past midnight on Tuesday morning, and rode to Seton House, whence they were escorted to Dunbar Castle.¹

¹ _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 92‒98; Sir James Melville’s
_Memoirs_, page 151.

When the confederate nobles rose that morning they found that they had been completely outwitted, and that they were in imminent danger. A large force quickly rallied round the Queen, who at once advanced upon Edinburgh. The opposing party of nobles were unprepared to meet her army, and immediately dispersed; Morton and Ruthven fled to England, others fled to the Highlands, and some of them went home to their estates. After a short time the Queen pardoned Moray, and some of his associates; but on those directly concerned in the murder of Riccio, she seemed determined to be revenged. Darnley exhibited the baseness of his nature by loudly denouncing his fellow-murderers. His treachery he hoped would win back the esteem and regain for him the love of his wife. In reality it only made him loathsome to her, while the nobles regarded him as an object of hatred and utter contempt.¹ When the Queen returned to the capital, Knox left it and went to Kyle. Many persons were apprehended in Edinburgh and accused of being concerned in the murder of Riccio, but only two men were executed――Thomas Scott, Sheriff-Depute of Perth, and Henry Yair.² On the 8th of June, 1566, the Council passed an act commanding the people not to receive or entertain the Earl of Morton, Lord Lindsay, the Master of Ruthven, and other thirty persons named, because they were implicated in the vile and treasonable slaughter of David Riccio, her Majesty’s French Secretary. All these and some more of their accomplices were denounced as rebels and outlaws, for not appearing before the Council and answering to the charges against them.³

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 446‒437,
456‒457.

² Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I., pages 480, 481.

³ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 462‒464.

The Queen retired into the castle of Edinburgh, and on the 19th of June, 1566, James VI. of Scotland and I. of England, was born. After this event the Queen showed a disposition to listen to the suggestions for reconciliation with the nobles who had rebelled against her. Moray, Argyle, Glencairn, and others of the Protestant party, were re-admitted to a share in the administration, although Bothwell and Huntly were at the head of the government. Mary rewarded Bothwell for his very important service by appointing him Keeper of Dunbar Castle.¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., pages 374, 464, 468; _Burgh Records of
Edinburgh_, Volume III., page 219.

The series of events leading up to the murder of Darnley, the ♦marriage of the Queen with Bothwell, and her subsequent imprisonment, have often been detailed at great length. All that can be attempted here is to indicate the motives of the chief actors and the circumstances which controlled the form of the drama. On the one hand, we have the Queen and her husband; Mary was a good Catholic and really wished to stand well in the eyes of the Pope and the other Catholic rulers of Europe. She was a woman of great energy and remarkable talents. Up to the time of the birth of her son, she may be said, when everything is taken into account, to have acted in the government of the country with surprising moderation and fairness. But her feelings were extremely keen, her sentiments tender and kindly, her emotions and passions strong; withal she was a woman of exceptional polish and commanding presence. On the other hand, Darnley had acted in a very singular way towards his wife. He had exhibited so much folly, falsehood, depravity, and such utter stupidity, that he must have completely alienated the Queen from him; while on the other side, he had unpardonably offended the pride and aroused the hatred of a party of the nobles, whose revenge was deep and never slumbered. His doom was therefore settled. Indeed, the aristocracy had long been following a line of policy which tended directly to depress the authority of the Crown, and they were not likely to let the opportunity slip, which a concurrence of circumstances was now offering, without turning it to their own advantage.

♦ “marrriage” replaced with “marriage”

The plot for the murder of Darnley, which seems to have originated with Lethington, was soon concocted. According to custom a bond was drawn up by Sir James Balfour, an experienced lawyer, and a firm friend of Bothwell. This bond declared that Darnley――“was a young fool and tyrant, and unworthy to rule over them.” They therefore bound themselves to remove him by some means or another, and each engaged to stand true to the other in this deadly enterprise. The bond was subscribed by the Earls of Argyle, Huntly, and Bothwell, Lethington the Secretary of State, Sir James Balfour, and others who joined in the conspiracy. Their victim had become sick, and was visited by the Queen at Glasgow, whence he was conveyed to Edinburgh on the last day of January 1567. He was put into a house close to the city wall, called Kirk-of-Field, and here the Queen was very attentive to him and for several nights before the murder slept in the room immediately below him. At last everything seems to have been prepared, and the evening of Sunday the 9th of February, was fixed for his murder. When the day arrived everything at the court was going on in the most natural and joyful fashion; the Earl of Moray had left to join his wife at St. Andrews; and on the evening fixed for the murder a marriage was to be celebrated between two of the Queen’s servants. Meanwhile the servants of Bothwell and the Earl himself were intently engaged in making the final preparations for the horrible deed. The conspirators had resolved to blow up the house with powder. After dark they placed a large quantity of that destructive element in the room below the king, Bothwell himself superintending the operations. About ten o’clock in the evening the Queen arrived from Holyrood to join her husband, and passing the door of her own bedroom, entered the apartment of the king. Some agreeable conversation passed between them; and then the Queen recollected that she had promised to attend the ball to be held that night in honour of her two servants’ marriage. She bade the King farewell and departed, with Bothwell and Huntly and her attendants to Holyrood; and apparently only two of the conspirators remained behind at the King’s lodgings. In spite of all the care that had been taken by the contrivers of this dolesome plot, there appears to have been a hitch in their proceedings. It is pretty evident that Darnley and his servant had discovered their danger and attempted to escape, and had got some distance away when they were caught in the garden and strangled. Bothwell with a company of his followers returned from the palace about midnight, and joined the two conspirators, who had already lighted the train. The explosion shook the earth for miles around, and all the inhabitants of Edinburgh were aroused from their sleep. The murderers had to escape swiftly. Bothwell ran to his apartments in the palace and immediately went to bed, only to be awakened as if from slumber half an hour afterwards, by a message informing him of the tragedy. He then, like an innocent man, shouted “Treason! treason!” and along with the Earl of Huntly called on the Queen to tell her what had happened.¹

¹ Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, pages 173, 174; Keith, Volume
II., pages 501‒507; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 105, 106;
Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I.; Chalmers’s _Life
of Queen Mary_, Volume I. And a very full account of all
the proceedings in the fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters of
Hosack’s _Mary Queen of Scots_, 1870.

It was well known at the time that the chief actor in this great crime was Bothwell, but at the moment no one would have been safe to accuse him. Many of the nobles were directly, and others indirectly, implicated in it. The confused state of feeling and belief, and the traditional policy of the nobles introduced a variety of motives into the breasts of these desperate men.¹ The murder caused great excitement among the people, owing more to the unusual way in which it was committed, than to any feelings of compassion or humanity. Voices were heard at night in the streets of Edinburgh denouncing the murderers. On the 12th of February, a statement emanated from the Privy Council which announced “that two hours after midnight, the house where the late King’s grace was lodged, was in an instant blown in the air, while he was sleeping in his bed, with such force and vehemence that the whole lodging was destroyed and driven to dross to the very ground stone; and not long thereafter the bodies of his grace and of a servant were found dead within a short space of the same lodging.” A reward of two thousand pounds and a grant of lands was offered to any one who should discover the murderers of the King; but no one ventured to claim the reward by an open accusation, although a bill was fixed to the door of the parliament house, naming Bothwell, Balfour, Chambers, and John Spense, as the guilty parties; and another placard named others of the inferior actors in the tragedy. On the 14th of the month the remains of the King were privately interred in the Chapel of Holyrood. The following day the Queen, with Huntly, Argyle, Bothwell, and the Archbishop of St. Andrews, removed to the house of Lord Seton; and it was observed at the time that more inquiry was made for the authors of the placards than for the murderers of the King. Bothwell himself, surrounded by fifty armed men on horseback, rode from Seton to Edinburgh, paraded the streets, and, with hideous oaths and furious gestures, openly declared “that if he knew who were the authors of the bills, he would wash his hands in their blood.”²

¹ “The conduct of the leading nobility of Scotland in the reign
of Mary Stuart has no parallel in the history even of that
turbulent country. We have seen that during her residence in
France, they assumed the right of disposing of her Crown. We
find them afterwards rising in rebellion against her because
she married Darnley; and yet a few months later, we find the
very same men conspiring to dethrone her and to bestow the
Crown upon her husband. Failing in this, they next resolved
to murder him; and after they effect their purpose, they
first recommend their chief accomplice as a new husband for
their Queen; and they then combine to punish him for the
murder. But it is easy to perceive that the conduct of the
great nobles, which at first sight appears so inconsistent,
and even inexplicable, was guided throughout by a fixed
determination to depress the authority of the Crown....
James V. had, during his brief reign, struggled manfully
against the common oppressors of the people and the Crown,
but he perished in the unequal struggle. The duty of
reducing the nobles to obedience next devolved upon his
daughter; and although possessing many qualities for the
task, she too found at last that it was beyond her strength.
So long as she suffered the dominant faction to exercise
the whole powers of the government, she was allowed to reign
in peace; but as soon as she adopted an independent course
by determining to marry, they turned against her, under
the pretence that their religion was in danger; and we find
them engaged in one desperate conspiracy after another,
until they finally succeeded in depriving her of her Crown.
We have no example, in ancient or modern times, of men
so utterly unscrupulous as those by whom this revolution
was accomplished. Combining as they did all the energy of
the North with more than the perfidy of the South, courted
at the crisis of the Reformation as well by England as by
France, they were equally ready to clutch the bribes and
betray the interests of both. At home the circumstance of
two minorities following in succession had greatly aided
their power, and they now had every prospect of a third. It
was only necessary to destroy the reputation of the Queen in
order to secure the triumph of the ruling faction for many
years.”――Hosack’s _Mary Queen of Scots_, Volume I., pages
331‒332.

² _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 498, 500;
_Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 106; Tytler’s _History of
Scotland_, Volume VII., page 90.

Touching the never-ending question of the guilt of the Queen in connection with the murder of Darnley, it must be admitted that while many of her enemies in Scotland were prepossessed against her, and others of them were eager to assume that she was guilty, there is evidence that she was informed of a proposal which had been under the consideration of a party of the nobles for removing the King out of the way; but no direct evidence has been found that she gave any encouragement to the plot or in any way sanctioned it. The point has been often fully argued on both sides; but much of the whole evidence which has from time to time been adduced, is utterly worthless and irrelevant. After a careful examination of the case I am compelled to state that the circumstantial evidence is strong on the count that Mary knew something about the plot; but that she encouraged or sanctioned it seems to me improbable. In that direction there is no real evidence against her. Indeed, she had too much judgment to commit herself to anything of this character; and a mere silent acquiescence in what was to be done, was in all probability the relation in which Mary stood to the murderers of her husband. But even this was sufficient to compromise her, while immediately succeeding events, and her relations with the chief actor in the tragedy, tended to stain her character.

Rumours immediately began to arise that the Queen was about to marry Bothwell, and that she was not innocent of the King’s death. A correspondence was opened between her and the Earl of Lennox, who naturally insisted that the parties who had murdered his son, should be brought to justice, and distinctly called upon the Queen to take steps to effect that end. At last, Lennox himself was charged to attend the trial of Bothwell, as a party to the action; and on the 28th of March, 1567, the Queen consulted the Council concerning the application of Lennox, as to the trial of Bothwell and others for the murder of the King. The Council ordered them to be tried by a jury; and accordingly the trial of Bothwell was fixed for the 12th of April.¹ The trial, however, was a mere farce. The court sat in Edinburgh, and Bothwell had three thousand of his armed retainers on the streets of the capital. Certain forms of law were gone through, but no witnesses appeared against him, and he was of course acquitted. He then published a challenge, boldly offering single combat to any one, noble or commoner, rich or poor, who dared to affirm that he was guilty of the murder of the king. This had at least a touch of rather grim humour about it; and as no one responded to his challenge, he could then aver that he had satisfied the law and the ancient custom of his country.²

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., page 404; Sir
James Melville’s _Memoirs_, page 175.

² Keith, Volume II., page 563; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages
107‒108.

Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 14th April, two days after the trial of Bothwell, and he bore the crown and sceptre before the Queen when she rode to the parliament house. A number of acts were passed, chiefly relating to ratifications of grants of land. John Erskine got a ratification of the earldom of Mar, the regality of the Garioch, and other lordships. There were also ratifications of lands to the Earls of Huntly, Moray, Crawford, Morton, Rothes, and other barons, and formal reductions of the forfeitures against the Earls of Huntly and Sutherland, and a number of gentlemen of the name of Gordon, were gone through. Bothwell got a grant of lands with the castle of Dunbar; and an act was passed against the makers and up-setters of the placards and bills which had given Mary and Bothwell so much annoyance. An act was also passed which purported to recognise religious toleration.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
545‒590.

The relations of the Queen and Bothwell quickly developed. On the day after parliament rose, Bothwell invited the nobility to a banquet at an hotel in Edinburgh; and a large party of the nobles responded to his hospitable call. After the red wine had been freely quaffed which warmed all their hearts and quickened the circulation of their blood till their faces smirked with joy, he placed before them a bond and kindly requested them to subscribe it. This document stated that some of Bothwell’s ill-willers and private enemies had malignantly slandered and accused him of being art and part in the heinous murder of the late king; but now that he was acquitted, and had also according to ancient custom offered to prove his innocence by single combat, and having a due regard to the nobleness of his house, and the good and honourable service rendered by his predecessors, and more especially by himself to her Majesty the Queen, “in the defence of her realm against the enemies thereof;” considering moreover that it was ruinous to the kingdom for the Queen to remain a widow, the bond then went on to recommend Bothwell, a married man, as the most suitable match she could obtain amongst her own subjects. All the nobles present, except the Earl of Eglinton, who managed to slip away, signed the bond. They undertook upon their honour and faith――“to promote, further, advance, and set forward the marriage to be solemnised and completed between her Highness and the said noble lord, with our votes, counsel, strength, and assistance in word and deed, at such time as it should please her Majesty to fix, and as soon as the law shall allow it to be done.” They thus bound themselves to risk their lands and lives against all who might oppose the marriage.¹

¹ Keith, Volume II., pages 562‒565; Hosack’s _Mary Queen of
Scots_, Volume I., pages 301‒304.

On the 21st of April the Queen went to Stirling to visit her son, and remained two days. When returning to Edinburgh on the 24th, she was met by Bothwell at the head of a company of his own retainers, and conveyed to the castle of Dunbar. Whether the Queen was taken by Bothwell against her will and forcibly detained, is a point which has long been vehemently contested. Both sides have argued their special views at great length, but with little decisive results.¹ Without venturing to pronounce any dogmatic opinion upon the matter, it should be remembered that in those days there was hardly anything too daring for a Scottish noble to undertake if there was a chance of success and the object interesting and important, and that obstacles which would now be deemed insurmountable, were then often disregarded, and the main aim pursued with a recklessness of consequences almost incredible. A little attention to this feature in the character of the aristocracy of the period might tend to clear the capture of Mary of some of its difficulties; we should be prepared to see that neither honesty nor consistency were essential features of the aristocratic character of the age, and allowance should be made for the play and action of this throughout the whole of the revolutionary movement. But when all the circumstances are taken into account, and every corollary duly weighed, it is rather difficult to believe that Mary was not aware of the intention of Bothwell to lead her to Dunbar. If she had not been so, there was no necessity for her yielding to him at the Bridge of Almond; and even when in the castle of Dunbar, a woman of her mental resource and energy could easily have found means of discarding him, without leaving any disgrace upon her brow. Although Bothwell was a profligate and unscrupulous man, it is not likely that he would have murdered the Queen if she had resisted his advances.

¹ _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 109; Sir James Melville’s
_Memoirs_, page 177; _Birrel’s Diary_.

But according to the Queen’s own account, it was against her will that Bothwell conveyed her to Dunbar castle. The Earl of Huntly, the Chancellor, Lethington the Secretary, and Sir James Melville, were in attendance upon her when she was carried to Dunbar. Melville said that Bothwell boasted that he would marry her, “who would or who would not; yea, whether she would herself or not;” and he also said that the Queen could not help marrying Bothwell, after he had publicly carried her off and dishonoured her. Mary was kept for a week a close prisoner in Dunbar castle. Although the exact character of the acts and proceedings which occurred between Mary and Bothwell during these seven days, can never be accurately known, yet there is evidence that Bothwell was permitted and even encouraged by many of the nobles――to shamefully handle the Queen.

Whether Mary was passionately in love with Bothwell before the murder of Darnley, seems a difficult question to settle. At a later stage, an attempt was made to prove that she was by “The Casket Letters,” and thus directly to connect her with the murder of Darnley, as a partner of Bothwell’s guilt in the deed. Much has been written about these letters, and great ingenuity has been shown both by the defenders of Mary, and by her assailants. The one party have maintained that these letters were forgeries――fabricated by the accusers of the Queen; while another party have maintained with more or less confidence that they were genuine letters of Mary’s addressed to Bothwell, or which passed between her and him. Some of them are harmless, others are incriminating. But the latest authority who has carefully examined them and the related circumstances, Mr. Henderson, seems to have some doubts about their genuineness; although he attaches much importance to Morton’s recently discovered declaration concerning them. My own view is that they are not genuine letters of Queen Mary to Bothwell, though some parts of letters of hers may have been infused into them.

Bothwell conducted the Queen to the castle of Edinburgh on the 29th of April, and preparations for their union were rapidly pushed forward. He obtained a divorce from his own wife on the 7th of May, 1567, upon the ground of consanguinity, and for adultery on _his_ part. The banns of marriage were proclaimed on the 12th of May; and on the 15th of the month the marriage was celebrated in the palace of Holyrood.¹

¹ Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, pages 178, 179; _Diurnal
of Occurrents_, page 111. Schiern’s _Life of James Hepburn,
Earl of Bothwell_, pages 237‒242. For full accounts of
the divorce between the Earl of Bothwell and his wife, see
Anderson’s _Collections_; Keith, Volume II., pages 571‒575;
and Riddel’s _Peer, and Consistorial Law of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 392‒394, 433, 434, 437.

But unfortunately the stream of events soon began to disturb the happiness of the newly wedded pair. It was surely a cruel destiny that so swiftly overtook them, and led to their final separation. For three weeks after their marriage, they remained at Holyrood, and on the 4th of June the Privy Council passed an act in the form of a declaration from the Queen, upon the groundlessness of the rumours and fears of the people. “Her Majesty, considering and thinking upon her own state, and the government of her realm, over which Almighty God has placed her supreme head and lawful inheritor, and moreover, recalling what great alterations and strange accidents have from time to time occurred during her Majesty’s reign; but especially since her highness entered this realm and took the management and government of the affairs thereof on her own person, which, all praise be to God, were happy and quietly settled down by her Majesty: And God so prospered the work in her hands, as well to her own honour as the satisfaction and contentment of all her good subjects, that all the time of her Majesty’s personal reign, they have never felt the force of foreign enemies, but lived in good peace ... so that they may justly compare their state during her Majesty’s reign to the most happy time that has occurred within the memory of man. But as envy is the enemy of virtue, and that seditious and unquiet spirits for ever seek occasion to stir up trouble and strife; so however sincerely and uprightly, or however perfectly her Majesty direct her doings, instead of thankful hearts and good obedience, her Highness’ clemency is commonly abused and recompensed with thwartness and ingratitude; and when she is thinking least of any innovation, always some clamour is raised that alterations are to be introduced, and the people persuaded to believe it; as if her Highness’ care of the nation were lost, that she meant to subvert the laws, to reject the counsel and assistance of her nobility, and to handle all things without discretion, and contrary to the ancient customs. But last, it is most grevious and offensive of all, when it is said, that the health, preservation, sure custody, and guardianship of her most dear and only son the prince, now in his infancy, has been neglected by her Highness.”¹ Most people will be ready to exonerate the Queen from the foolish slanders that she ever intended any harm to her infant.

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 514‒516.

This declaration plainly shows that troubles had been gathering round the unhappy Queen. She had ordered the feudal array to assemble at Melrose on the 15th of June, for an attack upon the insolent and disorderly borderers; but there was no appearance of the order being obeyed. In fact, the ball was taking another turn. A party of the nobles, including the Earls of Morton, Mar, Athole, and Glencairn, Lords Lindsay, Hume, the Laird of Grange, and others, were then uniting for a struggle against Bothwell, and, as the issue showed, also against the Queen herself. The Queen and Bothwell left Edinburgh on the 7th of June, and passed to Borthwick Castle, a place of great strength about ten miles south of the capital. Two of the confederate leaders, the Earl of Morton and Lord Hume, with a considerable force immediately appeared before the castle, and Bothwell and the Queen with difficulty escaped to Dunbar. The pair were now much alarmed. They issued a proclamation commanding the Crown vassals of the district to muster immediately. The confederates took possession of Edinburgh, and proceeded to make themselves secure; and having managed to come to an understanding with Sir James Balfour, the governor of the Castle, they at once assumed all the functions of the government. On the 11th of June, they issued a proclamation from the Canongate, touching the crisis of affairs and ordering the people of all ranks, but especially the burgesses and inhabitants of Edinburgh, to muster and assist in rescuing the Queen from thraldom, “to preserve the prince’s most gracious person from all such as would invade him, and to try and purge the kingdom of the most cruel and abominable murder of his late father,” by bringing the guilty parties to punishment.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 516, 517,
519, 520; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 114; _Burgh Records
of Edinburgh_, Volume III., page 231.

Meanwhile the Queen and Bothwell had mustered between two and three thousand men, and advanced on Edinburgh. The confederate lords resolved to meet them, and marching from the capital, the two parties came in sight of each other near Musselburgh. Bothwell had posted his men on Carberry Hill. After a day’s manœuvering and treating, the Queen surrendered herself to the nobles, and Bothwell was allowed to ride off in the direction of Dunbar. The Queen was taken to Edinburgh, and when she at last saw herself a prisoner in the hands of a party of the nobles, she was extremely displeased. She surrendered on the 15th of June, and on the 17th was conveyed a captive to Lochleven, on the alleged ground that she had refused to abandon Bothwell.¹

¹ Teulet, Volume II., page 313; Tytler’s _History of Scotland_,
Volume VII., pages 135‒137.

The confederate nobles soon developed their scheme, which was in harmony with their traditions and previous history. It consisted in taking the rights of the Crown into their own hands. They ordered all the members of the Court of Session to resume their business; they issued proclamations against Bothwell, and demanded the surrender of the Castle of Dunbar; they gave instructions that those who were suspected of being concerned in the King’s murder should be seized and tortured; and all this was done by the very men who were themselves more or less implicated in the murder of the King, and many of whom had sanctioned the marriage of the Queen with Bothwell. They issued a proclamation also against the inhabitants of Crail for abetting Bothwell and furnishing him with boats; and the Bishop of Moray they punished for harbouring him in the Castle of Spynie.¹ Yet, it may be doubted if the confederate nobles really desired to take Bothwell; he would have been a very dangerous prisoner in their hands. Probably they merely wanted to drive him out of the country, and in this they succeeded.

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 523‒525,
526‒528, 530, 531.

The plans which the party then at the head of affairs had determined upon, rendered it necessary to treat the Queen with great severity. They had resolved to depose her, to place the crown on her infant son, and to appoint the Earl of Moray regent during the prince’s minority. In the Island of Lochleven on the 23rd of July they presented two documents to the Queen, which they requested her to subscribe; the one was a renunciation of her crown, and the other appointed Moray to the regency. These were hard terms for a young high-spirited princess; but such pressure was put upon Mary that she yielded and signed the two deeds, which were then ratified by parliament. When Queen Elizabeth heard of the treatment which the Queen of Scots had received at the hands of her rebellious subjects, she was extremely wroth and threatened to inflict condign punishment upon them, but her boasting ended in nothing. For some time after her imprisonment in Lochleven Mary was very strictly guarded, and hardly any one was admitted to visit her.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, pages 531‒534, 537‒541;
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., page 11,
_et seq._; Lord Lindsay’s _Lives of the Lindsays_, Volume I.,
pages 285‒287.

In the summer of 1567, the General Assembly held two meetings, and the reformed clergy threw the whole weight of their influence on the side of the confederate nobles. They first met at Edinburgh on the 25th of June, George Buchanan being chosen moderator. Knox, who had been for some time absent from the chief centre of activity, then returned to Edinburgh; and the members of the Assembly resolved to meet again on the 20th of July, and meantime to send letters to all the earls, lords, barons, and other brethren, to attend upon that day. The letters sent out to the nobles indicated the matters which it was intended to discuss at the ensuing Assembly. The Assembly met at the appointed time. John Row, minister of Perth, was elected moderator. The Earl of Argyle sent in a letter to the Assembly, stating that as he had not joined the confederate lords, who were then surrounded with an army in Edinburgh, he could not attend the meeting of the Church; and for the same reason Lord Boyd and the commendators of the abbacies of Arbroath and Kilwinning refused to attend the Assembly. In the list of the nobility present were the names of the Earls of Morton, Mar, and Glencairn; Lord Hume, Lord Ruthven, Lord Lindsay, Lord Graham, Lord Innermaith, Lord Ochiltree, Sir James Balfour, James M‘Gill, Tulliebardie, and a large number of the smaller barons and lairds; but the body of the higher nobles had as yet stood aloof from the proceedings against the Queen. A number of articles were laid before the lords and barons who were present, and they subscribed them. The articles were then recorded in the Register of the Privy Council. These articles embraced a variety of matters touching religion: the thirds of benefices, the distribution of the patrimony of the Church, and the social state of the people. They bore that at the first lawful Parliament the nobles and barons should exert themselves to the utmost to establish and promote the reformed religion within the kingdom; that Parliament must do something to relieve and lighten the extreme burdens of the poor labourers of the ground; that all vice, crimes, and offences against God’s law should be severely punished according to the Scriptures; that the horrible murder of the King, which was odious in the sight of God and the whole world, should not be hushed up, and that the Signatories bound themselves to punish all persons who should be found guilty of that crime. The articles concluded――“The nobility, barons, and others of the Church under-subscribed, in the presence of God have faithfully promised to convene their power and forces, and then to root out, destroy, and utterly subvert all the monuments of idolatry, namely, the odious and blasphemous mass, and thereafter to go forward throughout the whole kingdom, to all and sundry places wheresoever idolatry is fostered, haunted, or maintained, and chiefly where mass is said, to execute the reformation aforesaid, without exception of place or person; and shall to the uttermost of their power remove all idolaters and others that are not admitted to the ministry of the Church from all function thereof, as well private as public, that they hinder not the ministry in any manner of way in their vocation. And in the place of the premises shall set up and establish the true religion of Jesus Christ throughout this whole realm by planting churches, superintendents, ministers, and other needful members of the Church, then the rest of the lords shall pass through the whole country to this effect, and also shall proceed to the punishment of idolaters according to the laws thereupon pronounced; and in like manner they shall punish and cause to be punished all other vices that presently abound within this realm, which God’s law and the civil laws of the kingdom command to be punished, and chiefly the murder of the King lately committed. And likewise faithfully promise to reform the schools, colleges, and the universities, and to expel and remove the idolaters that have charge thereof, and others who as yet have not joined themselves to the true Church of Christ, and plant faithful instructors in their places, to the end that the youth be not infected by poisoned doctrine at the beginning which after cannot be well removed away.”¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 93‒97, 100‒103, 106‒110;
_Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 534‒537.

It is in these proceedings that we see the real spirit which animated the reformed clergy, who had a great influence with the people; and it was this that gave the confederate nobles success against the Queen. Her own conduct again, was such that it was often turned against her. But after all it is very questionable whether she would have been able to remain upon the throne of Scotland much longer, even though her conduct had been far more exemplary.

Her reign was characterised by many and great difficulties. There were not merely political matters demanding wise management, but also difficult and pressing religious and social questions, springing from the Reformation movement. With the latter, Mary, when she came to the throne, was not in a position to deal satisfactorily; being a Catholic herself, to have attempted to deal with them would have been contrary to her belief, her education, her ideas of authority, and to the aims of the Pope, and all her Roman Catholic allies. Thus it is not surprising that she failed to hold the reins of government in Scotland. Many of the nobles opposed her for their own ends, and exerted themselves to the utmost to destroy whatever influence she had among the people; and their success was complete.

Having imprisoned and deposed the Queen, the Lords next proceeded according to custom to place her son upon the throne. The infant King was crowned in the parish church of Stirling on the 29th of July, 1567. The two deeds which Mary had signed at Lochleven were publicly read, and the Earl of Morton took the Coronation oath for the prince and Steward of Scotland, whom the bishop of Caithness then anointed “the most excellent Prince and King of this realm.” The proceedings were wound up by John Knox with a sermon which he delivered in his most vigorous style.¹ The following day the King’s authority was proclaimed; and the reign of Queen Mary in fact and law terminated.

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 537‒543;
_Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 118‒119; _Burgh Records of
Edinburgh_, Volume III., page 238.