To restore his family to land and power, Huntly was ready to sacrifice not only faith and honour, but natural affection. Twice he was to sell his sister, Lady Jane, once when he married her to Bothwell against her will: once when, Bothwell having won her love, Huntly compelled or induced her to divorce him. But these things lay in the future. For the moment, the autumn of 1562, the Huntlys were ruined, and Bothwell (August 28, 1562), in the confusion, escaped from prison in Edinburgh Castle. Some whispered that he got easy passage by the gates, says Knox. One thing, he adds, is certain, to wit, the Queen was little offended at his escaping.[23] He was, at least, her mothers faithful servant.
We begin to see that the Protestant party henceforward suspected the Queen of regarding Bothwell as, to Mary, a useful man in case of trouble. Bothwell first fled to Hermitage Castle in Liddesdale. As Lieutenant-General on the Border he commanded the reckless broken clans, the Lambs, his own Hepburns, Hays, Ormistouns of Ormistoun, and others who aided him in his most desperate enterprises; while, as Admiral, he had the dare-devils of the sea to back him.
Lord James now became Earl of Moray, and all-powerful; and Bothwell, flying to France, was storm-stayed at Holy Island, and held prisoner by Elizabeth. His kinsfolk made interest for him with Mary, and, on February 5, 1564, she begged Elizabeth to allow him to go abroad. In England, Bothwell is said to have behaved with unlooked-for propriety. He is very wise, and not the man he was reported to be, that is, not rash, glorious, and hazardous, Sir Harry Percy wrote to Cecil. His behaviour has been courteous and honourable, keeping his promise. Sir John Forster corroborated this evidence. Bothwell, then, was not loutish, but, when he pleased, could act like a gentleman. He sailed to France, and says himself that he became Captain of the Scottish Guards, a post which Arran had once held. In France he is said to have accused Mary of incestuous relations with her uncle, the Cardinal.
During Bothwells residence in England, and in France, the equipoise of Marys political position had been disturbed. She had held her ground, against the extreme Protestants, who clamoured for the death of all idolaters, by her alliance with les politiques, led by Moray and Lethington. Their ambition, like hers, was to see the crowns of England and Scotland united in her, or in her issue. Therefore they maintained a perilous amity with England, and with Elizabeth, while plans for a meeting of the Queens, and for the recognition of Mary as Elizabeths heir, were being negotiated. But this caused ceaseless fretfulness to Elizabeth, who believed, perhaps correctly, that to name her successor was to seal her death-warrant. The Catholics of England would have hurried her to the grave, she feared, that they might welcome Mary. In the same way, no conceivable marriage for Mary could be welcome to Elizabeth, who hated the very name of wedlock. Yet, while Bothwell was abroad, and while negotiations lasted, there was a kind of repose, despite the anxieties of the godly and their outrages on Catholics. Mary endured much and endured with some patience. One chronic trouble was at rest. The feud between the Hamiltons, the nearest heirs of the crown, and the rival claimants, the Lennox Stewarts, was quiescent.
The interval of peace soon ended. Lennox, the head of the House hateful to the Hamiltons, was, at the end of 1564, allowed to return to Scotland, and was reinstated in the lands which his treason had forfeited long ago. In the early spring of 1565, Lennoxs son, Darnley, followed his father to the North, was seen and admired by Mary, and the peace of Scotland was shattered. As a Catholic by education, though really of no creed in particular, Darnley excited the terrors of the godly. His marriage with Mary meant, to Moray, loss of power; to Lethington, a fresh policy; to the Hamiltons, the ruin of their hopes of royalty, while, by most men, Darnley soon came to be personally detested.
Before it was certain that Mary would marry Darnley, but while the friends and foes of the match were banding into parties, early in March 1565, Bothwell returned unbidden to Scotland, and lurked in his Border fastness. Knoxs continuator says that Moray told Mary that either he or Bothwell must leave the country. Mary replied that, considering Bothwells past services, she could not hate him, neither could she do anything prejudicial to Moray.[24] A day of law was set for Bothwell, for May 2, but, as Moray gathered an overpowering armed force, he sent in a protest, by his comparatively respectable friend, Hepburn of Riccartoun, and went abroad. Mary, according to Randolph, had said that she altogether misliked his home-coming without a licence, but Bedford feared that she secretly abetted him. He was condemned in absence, but Mary was thought to have prevented the process of outlawry. Dr. Hay Fleming, however, cites Pitcairns Criminal Trials, i. 462,[25] as proof that Bothwell actually was outlawed, or put to the horn. Knoxs continuator, however, says that Bothwell was not put to the horn, for the Queen continually bore a great favour to him, and kept him to be a soldier.[26] The Protestants ever feared that Mary would shake Bothwell out of her pocket, against them.[27]
Presently, her temper outworn by the perpetual thwartings which checked her every movement, and regardless of the opposition of Moray, of the Hamiltons, of Argyll, and of the whole Protestant community, Mary wedded Darnley (July 29, 1565). Her adversaries assembled in arms, secretly encouraged by Elizabeth, and what Kirkcaldy of Grange had prophesied occurred: Mary shook Bothwell out of her pocket at her opponents. In July, she sent Hepburn of Riccartoun to summon him back from France. Riccartoun was captured by the English, but Bothwell, after a narrow escape, presented himself before Mary on September 20. By October, Moray, the Hamiltons, and Argyll were driven into England or rendered harmless. Randolph now reported that Bothwell and Atholl were all-powerful. The result was ill feeling between Darnley and Bothwell. Darnley wished his father, Lennox, to govern on the Border, but Mary gave the post to Bothwell.[28] Her estrangement from Darnley had already begun. Jealousy of Marys new secretary, Riccio, was added.
The relations between Darnley, Bothwell, Mary, and Riccio, between the crushing of Morays revolt, in October 1565, and the murder of the Italian Secretary, in March 1566, are still obscure. Was Riccio Marys lover? What were the exact causes of the estrangement from Darnley, which was later used as the spring to discharge on Riccio, and on Mary, the wrath of the discontented nobles and Puritans? The Lennox Papers inform us, as to Mary and Darnley, that their love never decayed till their return from Dumfries, whence they had pursued Moray into England.
Mary had come back to Edinburgh from Dumfries by October 18, 1565. Riccio was already, indeed by September 22, complained of as a foreign upstart, but not as a lover of Mary, by the rebel Lords.[29] The Lennox Papers attribute the estrangement of Mary and Darnley to her pardoning without the consent of the King, her husband, sundry rebels, namely the Hamiltons. The pardon implied humiliation and five years of exile. It was granted about December 3.[30] The measure was deeply distasteful to Darnley and Lennox, who had long been at mortal feud, over the heirship to the crown, with the Lennox Stewarts. The pardon is attributed to the influence of Wicked David, Riccio. But to pardon perpetually was the function of a Scottish prince. Soon we find Darnley intriguing for the pardon of Moray, Ruthven, and others, who were not Hamiltons. Next, Lennox complains of Mary for using the said David more like a lover than a husband, forsaking her husbands bed and board very often. But this was not before November. The Book of Articles put in against Mary by her accusers is often based on Lennoxs papers. It says she suddenly altered the same (her vehement love of Darnley) about November, for she removed and secluded him from the counsel and knowledge of all Council affairs.[31] The Book of Articles, like Lennoxs own papers, omits every reference to Riccio that can be avoided. The Book of Articles, indeed, never hints at his existence. The reason is obvious: Darnley had not shone in the Riccio affair. Moreover the Lennox party could not accuse Mary of a guilty amour before mid November, 1565, for James VI. was born on June 19, 1566. It would not do to discredit his legitimacy. But, as early as September 1565, Bedford had written to Cecil that of the countenance which Mary gave to David he would not write, for the honour due to the person of a Queen.[32] Thus, a bride of six weeks, Mary was reported to be already a wanton! Moreover, on October 13, 1565, Randolph wrote from Edinburgh that Marys anger against Moray (who had really enraged her by rising to prevent her from marrying Darnley) came from some dishonourable secret in Morays keeping, not to be named for reverence sake. He has a thing more strange even than the fact that Mary places Bothwell in honour above every subject that she hath. As the thing is not a nascent passion for Bothwell, it may be an amour with Riccio.[33] Indeed, on October 18, 1565, he will not speak of the cause of mischief, but hints at a stranger and a varlet, Riccio.[34] Randolph and the English diplomatists were then infuriated against Mary, who had expelled their allies, Moray and the rest, discredited Elizabeth, their paymistress, and won over her a diplomatic victory. Consequently this talk of her early amour with Riccio, an ugly Milanese musician, need not be credited. For their own reasons, the Lennox faction dared not assert so early a scandal.
Mary had come back to Edinburgh from Dumfries by October 18, 1565. Riccio was already, indeed by September 22, complained of as a foreign upstart, but not as a lover of Mary, by the rebel Lords.[29] The Lennox Papers attribute the estrangement of Mary and Darnley to her pardoning without the consent of the King, her husband, sundry rebels, namely the Hamiltons. The pardon implied humiliation and five years of exile. It was granted about December 3.[30] The measure was deeply distasteful to Darnley and Lennox, who had long been at mortal feud, over the heirship to the crown, with the Lennox Stewarts. The pardon is attributed to the influence of Wicked David, Riccio. But to pardon perpetually was the function of a Scottish prince. Soon we find Darnley intriguing for the pardon of Moray, Ruthven, and others, who were not Hamiltons. Next, Lennox complains of Mary for using the said David more like a lover than a husband, forsaking her husbands bed and board very often. But this was not before November. The Book of Articles put in against Mary by her accusers is often based on Lennoxs papers. It says she suddenly altered the same (her vehement love of Darnley) about November, for she removed and secluded him from the counsel and knowledge of all Council affairs.[31] The Book of Articles, like Lennoxs own papers, omits every reference to Riccio that can be avoided. The Book of Articles, indeed, never hints at his existence. The reason is obvious: Darnley had not shone in the Riccio affair. Moreover the Lennox party could not accuse Mary of a guilty amour before mid November, 1565, for James VI. was born on June 19, 1566. It would not do to discredit his legitimacy. But, as early as September 1565, Bedford had written to Cecil that of the countenance which Mary gave to David he would not write, for the honour due to the person of a Queen.[32] Thus, a bride of six weeks, Mary was reported to be already a wanton! Moreover, on October 13, 1565, Randolph wrote from Edinburgh that Marys anger against Moray (who had really enraged her by rising to prevent her from marrying Darnley) came from some dishonourable secret in Morays keeping, not to be named for reverence sake. He has a thing more strange even than the fact that Mary places Bothwell in honour above every subject that she hath. As the thing is not a nascent passion for Bothwell, it may be an amour with Riccio.[33] Indeed, on October 18, 1565, he will not speak of the cause of mischief, but hints at a stranger and a varlet, Riccio.[34] Randolph and the English diplomatists were then infuriated against Mary, who had expelled their allies, Moray and the rest, discredited Elizabeth, their paymistress, and won over her a diplomatic victory. Consequently this talk of her early amour with Riccio, an ugly Milanese musician, need not be credited. For their own reasons, the Lennox faction dared not assert so early a scandal.
They, however, insisted that Mary, in November, removed and secluded Darnley from her Council. To prevent his knowing what letters were written, when he signed them with her, she had his name printed on an iron stamp, and used the same in all things, in place of his subscription. This stamp was employed in affixing his signature to the remission to the Hamiltons.[35]
In fact, Darnleys ambitions were royal, but he had an objection to the business which kings are well paid for transacting. Knoxs continuator makes him pass his time in hunting and hawking, and such other pleasures as were agreeable to his appetite, having in his company gentlemen willing to satisfy his will and affections. He had the two Anthony Standens, wild young English Catholics. While Darnley hunted and hawked, Lennox lies at Glasgow (where he had a castle near the Cathedral), and takes, I hear, what he likes from all men, says Randolph.[36] He writes (November 6) that Mary above all things desires her husband to be called King.[37] Yet it is hinted that she is in love with Riccio! On the same date oaths and bands are taken of all that acknowledge Darnley king, and liberty to live as they list in religion. On November 19, Mary was suffering from her old disease that commonly takes her this time of year in her side. It was a chronic malady: we read of it in the Casket Letters. From November 14 to December 1, she was ill, but Darnley hunted and hawked in Fife, from Falkland probably, and was not expected to return till December 4.[38] Lennox was being accused of extortions at Glasgow, complained of to the Council. Châtelherault was like to speed well enough in his suit to be restored, after his share in Morays rebellion.
Darnley was better engaged, perhaps, in Fife, than in advocating his needy and extortionate father before the Council, or in opposing the limited pardon to old Châtelherault. In such circumstances, Darnley was often absent, either for pleasure, or because his father was not allowed to despoil the West; while the Hamilton chief, the heir presumptive of the throne, was treated as a repentant rebel, rather than as a feudal enemy. He was an exile, and lost his moveables and all his castles, so he told Elizabeth.[39] During, or after, these absences of Darnley, that iron stamp, of which Buchanan complains, was made and used.
The Young Fool had brought this on himself. Mary already, according to Randolph, had been heard to say that she wished Lennox had never entered Scotland in her days. Lennox, the father-in-law of the Queen, was really a competitor for the crown. If Mary had no issue, he and Darnley desired the crown to be entailed on them, passing over the rightful heirs, the House of Hamilton. A father and son, with such preoccupations, could not safely be allowed to exercise power. The father would have lived on robbery, the son would have shielded him. Yet, so occupied was Darnley with distant field sports, that, says Buchanan, he took the affair of the iron stamp easily.[40] Next comes a terrible grievance. Darnley was driven out, in the depth of winter, to Peebles. There was so much snow, the roads were so choked, the country so bare, that Darnley might conceivably have been reduced to halesome parritch. Luckily the Bishop of Orkney, the jovial scoundrel, Bishop Turpy, who married Mary to Bothwell, and then denounced her to Elizabeth, had brought wine and delicacies. This is Buchanans tale. A letter from Lennox to Darnley, of December 20, 1565, represents the father as anxious to wait on Your Majesty at Peebles, but scarcely expecting him in such stormy weather. Darnley, doubtless, really went for the sake of the deer: which, in Scotland, were pursued at that season. He had been making exaggerated show of Catholicism, at matins on Christmas Eve, while Mary sat up playing cards.[41] Presently he was to be the ally of the extreme Protestants, the expelled rebels. Moray was said not to have two hundred crowns in the world, and was ready for anything, in his English retreat. Randolph (Dec. 25) reported private disorders between Darnley and Mary, but these may be but amantium iræ, lovers quarrels.[42] Yet, two months before he had hinted broadly that Riccio was the object of Marys passion.
On this important point of Marys guilt with Riccio, we have no affirmative evidence, save Darnleys word, when he was most anxious to destroy the Italian for political reasons. Randolph, who, as we have seen, had apparently turned his back on his old slanders, now accepted, or feigned to accept, Darnleys anecdotes of his discoveries.