When Mary had gone to Jedburgh, to hold a court (about October 8), du Croc was asked to meet Darnley at some place, apparently Dundas, three leagues from Edinburgh. Du Croc thought that Darnley wished Mary to ask him to return. But Darnley, du Croc believed, intended to hang off till after the baptism of James, and did not mean to be present on that occasion (pour ne sy trouver point). He had, in du Crocs opinion, but two causes of unhappiness: one, the reconciliation of the Lords with the Queen, and their favour; the other, a fear lest Elizabeths envoy to the baptism might decline to recognise him (ne fera compte de luy). The night-ride from Dundas to Linlithgow, in which (according to Lennox) Darnley told the tale of Marys advice to him to seduce Lady Moray, must have occurred at this very time, perhaps after the meeting with du Croc, three leagues from Edinburgh. In his paper about the night-ride, Lennox avers that Mary yielded to Bothwells love, before this ride and conversation. But he does not say that he himself was already aware of the amour, and his whole narrative leaves the impression that he was not. We are to suppose that, if Buchanans account is true, the adventures of the Exchequer House and of Lady Reres were only known to the world later. Certainly no suspicion of Mary had crossed the mind of du Croc, who says that he never saw her so much loved and respected; and, in short, there is no known contemporary hint of the beginning of the guilty amour, flagrant as were its alleged circumstances. This point has, naturally, been much insisted upon by the defenders of Mary.
It must not escape us that, about this time, almost every Lord, from Moray downwards, was probably united in a signed band against Darnley. The precise nature of its stipulations is uncertain, but that a hostile band existed, I think can be demonstrated. The Lords, in their letter of October 8 to Catherine, declare that they will never consent to let Darnley manage affairs. The evidence as to a band comes from four sources: Randolph, Archibald Douglas, a cousin and ally of Morton, Claude Nau, Marys secretary, and Moray himself.
First, on October 15, 1570, Randolph, being in Edinburgh after the death of the Regent Moray, writes: Divers, since the Regents death, either to cover their own doings or to advance their cause, have sought to make him odious to the world. The universal bruit runs upon three or four persons (Bothwell, Lethington, Balfour(?), Huntly, and Argyll) who subscribed upon a bond promising to concur and assist one another in the late Kings death. This bond was kept in the Castle, in a little coffer covered with green, and, after the apprehension of the Scottish Queen at Carberry Hill, was taken out of the place where it lay by the Laird of Lethington, in presence of Mr. James Balfour This being a thing so notoriously known, as well by Mr. James Balfours own report, as testimony of other who have seen the thing, is utterly denied to be true, and another bond produced which they allege to be it, containing no such matter, at the which, with divers other noblemens hands, the Regents was also made, a long time before the bond of the Kings murder was made, and now they say that if it can be proved by any bond that they consented to the Kings death, the late Regent is as guilty as they, and for testimony thereof (as Randolph is credibly informed) have sent a bond to be seen in England, which is either some new bond made among themselves, and the late Regents hand counterfeited at the same (which in some cases he knows has been done), or the old bond at which his hand is, containing no such matter. Randolph adds, as an example of forgery of Morays hand, the order for Lethingtons release by Kirkcaldy to whom Robert Melville attributed the forgery.[80] Thus both sides could deal in charges of forging hands.
But what is the old band, signed by Moray a long time before the bond of the Kings murder was made? To this question we probably find a reply in the long letter written by Archibald Douglas to Mary, in April, 1583, when he (one of Darnleys murderers) was an exile, and was seeking, and winning, Marys favour. Douglas had fled to France after Riccios murder, but was allowed to return to Scotland, to deal with Earls Murray, Athol, Bodvel, Arguile, and Secretary Ledington, in the interests of a pardon for Morton, Ruthven, and Lindsay. This must have been just after September 20, when the return of Lethington to favour occurred. But Murray, Atholl, Bothwell, Argyll, and Lethington told Douglas that they had made a band, with other noblemen, to this effect: that they were resolved to obey your Majesty as their natural sovereign, and have nothing to do with your husbands command whatsoever. So the Lords also told Catherine de Medici. They wished to know, before interfering in Mortons favour, whether he would also sign this anti-Darnley band, which Morton and his accomplices did. Archibald Douglas then returned, with their signatures, to Stirling, at the time of Jamess baptism, in mid December, 1566. Morton and his friends were then pardoned on December 24.[81] This anti-Darnley band, which does not allude to murder, must be that produced in 1570, according to Randolph, by divers, since Morays death, either to cover their own doings, or to advance their own cause, seeking to make him odious to the world. We thus find Moray, and all the most powerful nobles, banded against Darnley, some time between September and December 1566.
Now, Claude Nau, inspired by Mary, attributes Darnleys murder to a band written by Alexander Hay, at that time one of the clerks of the Council, and signed by the Earls of Moray, Huntly, Bothwell, and Morton, by Lethington, James Balfour, and others. Moray certainly did not sign the murderous band kept in the green-covered coffer, nor, as he alleged at his death, did Morton. But Nau seems to be confusing that band with the band of older date, to which, as Randolph admits, and as Archibald Douglas insists, Moray, Morton, and others put their hands, Morton signing as late as December 1566.
Nau says: They protested that they were acting for the public good of the realm, pretending that they were freeing the Queen from the bondage and misery into which she had been reduced by the Kings behaviour. They promised to support each other, and to avouch that the act was done justly, licitly, and lawfully by the leading men of the Council. They had done it in defence of their lives, which would be in danger, they said, if the King should get the upper hand and secure the government of the realm, at which he was aiming.[82] Randolph denies that there was any hint of murder in the band signed by Moray. Archibald Douglas makes the gist of it that they would have nothing to do with your husbands command whatsoever. Nau speaks of the act, but does not name murder explicitly as part of the band. Almost certainly, then, there did exist, in autumn 1566, a band hostile to Darnley, and signed by Moray and Morton. It seems highly probable that the old band, made long before the Kings murder, and of a character hostile to Darnleys influence, and menacing to him, is that which Moray himself declares that he did sign, at the beginning of October, 1566. When Moray, in London, on January 19, 1569, was replying to an account (the so-called Protestation of Argyll and Huntly) of the conference at Craigmillar, in November 1566, he denied (what was not alleged) that he signed any band there: at Craigmillar. This far the subscriptioun of bandes be me is trew, that indeed I subscrivit ane band with the Erlis of Huntlie, Ergile, and Boithvile in Edinburgh, at the begynning of October the same yeir, 1566: quhilk was devisit in signe of our reconciliatioun, in respect of the former grudgis and displesouris that had been amang us. Whereunto I wes constreinit to mak promis, before I culd be admittit to the Quenis presence or haif ony shew of hir faveur[83]
Now Moray had been admitted to Marys presence two days after the death of Riccio, before her flight to Dunbar. On April 25, 1566, Randolph writes from Berwick to Cecil: Murray, Argyll, and Glencairn are come to Court. I hear his (Morays) credit shall be good. The Queen wills that all controversies shall be taken up, in especial that between Murray and Bothwell.[84] On April 21, 1566, Moray, Argyll, Glencairn, and others were received by Mary in the Castle, and a Proclamation was made to soothe the enmity that was betwixt the Earls of Huntly, Bothwell, and Murray.[85] Thenceforward, as we have proved in detail, Moray was ostensibly in Marys favour. Moray would have us believe that he only obtained this grace by virtue of his promise to sign a band with Huntly, Bothwell, and Argyll: the last had been on his own side in his rebellion. But the band, he alleges, was not signed till October, 1566, though the promise must have been given, at least his favour with Mary was obtained, in April. And Moray signed the band precisely at the moment when Darnley was giving most notorious trouble, and had just been approached and implored by Mary, the Council, and the French ambassador. That was the moment when the Privy Council assured Catherine that they would never consent to Darnleys sovereignty. Why was that moment selected by Moray to fulfil a promise more than four months old? Was the band not that mentioned by Randolph, Archibald Douglas, and Nau, and therefore, in some sense, an anti-Darnley band, not a mere sign of reconciliation? The inference appears legitimate, and this old band signed by Moray seems to have been confused, by his enemies, with a later band for Darnleys murder, which we may be sure that he never signed. He only looked through his fingers.
On October 7, or 8, or 9, Mary left Edinburgh to hold a Border session at Jedburgh. She appears to have been in Jedburgh by the 9th.[86] On October 7, Bothwell was severely wounded, in Liddesdale, by a Border thief. On October 15, Mary rode to visit him at Hermitage.[87] Moray, says Sir John Forster to Cecil (October 15), was with her, and other nobles. Yet Buchanan says that she rode with such a company as no man of any honest degree would have adventured his life and his goods among them. Life, indeed, was not safe with the nobles, but how Buchanan errs! Du Croc, writing from Jedburgh on October 17, reports that Bothwell is out of danger: the Queen is well pleased, his loss to her would have been great.[88] Buchanans account of this affair is, that Mary heard at Borthwick of Bothwells wound, whereon she flingeth away like a mad woman, by great journeys in post, in the sharp time of winter (early October!), first to Melrose, then to Jedburgh. There, though she heard sure news of his life, yet her affection, impatient of delay, could not temper itself; but needs she must bewray her outrageous lust, and in an inconvenient time of the year, despising all incommodities of the way and weather, and all dangers of thieves, she betook herself headlong to her journey. The Book of Articles merely says that, after hearing of Bothwells wound, she took na kindly rest till she saw him a prolonged insomnia. On returning to Jedburgh, she prepared for Bothwells arrival, and, when he was once brought thither, then perhaps by their excessive indulgence in their passion, Buchanan avers, Mary nearly died.
All this is false. Mary stayed at least five days in Jedburgh before she rode to Hermitage, whither, says Nau, corroborated by Forster, Moray accompanied her. She fell ill on October 17, a week before Bothwells arrival at Jedburgh. On October 25, she was despaired of, and some thought she had passed away. Bothwell arrived, in a litter, about October 25. Forster says October 15, wrongly. These were no fit circumstances for their old pastime, which they took so openly, as they seemed to fear nothing more than lest their wickedness should be unknown. I never saw her Majesty so much beloved, esteemed, and honoured, du Croc had written on October 17.
Buchanans tale is here so manifestly false, that it throws doubt on his scandal about the Exchequer House. That Mary abhorred Darnley, and was wretched, is certain. How to be free of him she sees no outgait, writes Lethington on October 24. He saw no chance of reconciliation.[89]