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.
It is strange that Mary at the end of 1565, and the beginning of 1566, seems to have had no idea of the perils of her position. On January 31, 1566, she wrote to the most holy lord, the Lord Pope Pius V., saying: Already some of our enemies are in exile, and some of them are in our hands, but their fury, and the great necessity in which they are placed, urge them on to attempt extreme measures.[43] But, ungallant as the criticism may seem, I fear that this was only a begging letter in excelsis, and that Mary wanted the papal ducats, without entertaining any great hope or intention of aiding the papal cause, or any real apprehension of extreme measures on the side of her rebels. Her intention was to forfeit and ruin Moray and his allies, in the Parliament of the coming March. She also wished to do something tending to the restoration of the Church, by reintroducing the spiritual lords. But that she actually joined the Catholic League, as she was certainly requested to do, seems most improbable.[44] Having arranged a marriage between Bothwell and Huntlys sister, Lady Jane Gordon, she probably relied on the united strength of the two nobles in the North and the South. But this was a frail reed to lean upon. Marys position, though she does not seem to have realised it, was desperate. She had incurred the feud of the Lennox Stewarts, Lennox and Darnley, by her neglect of both, and by Darnleys jealousy of Riccio. The chiefs of the Hamiltons, who could always be trusted to counterbalance the Lennox faction, were in exile. Moray was desperate. Lethington was secretly estranged. The Protestants were at once angry and terrified: ready for extremes. Finally, Morton was threatened with loss of the seals, and almost all the nobles loathed the power of the low-born foreign favourite, Riccio.
Even now the exact nature of the intrigues which culminated in Riccios murder are obscure. We cannot entirely trust the well-known Relation which, after the murder, on April 2, Morton and Ruthven sent to Cecil. He was given leave to amend it, and it is, at best, a partisan report. Its object was to throw the blame on Darnley, who had deserted the conspirators, and betrayed them. According to Ruthven, it was on February 10 that Darnley sent to him George Douglas, a notorious assassin, akin both to Darnley and Morton. Darnley, it is averred, had proof of Marys guilt with Riccio, and desired to disgrace Mary by slaying Riccio in her presence. The negotiation, then, began with Darnley, on February 10.[45] But on February 5 Randolph had written to Cecil that Mary hath said openly that she will have mass free for all men that will hear it, and that Darnley, Lennox, and Atholl daily resort to it. The Protestants are in great fear and doubt what shall become of them. The wisest so much dislike this state and government, that they design nothing more than the return of the Lords, either to be put into their own rooms, or once again to put all in hazard.[46] The wisest is a phrase apt to mean Lethington. Now, on February 9, before Darnleys motion to Ruthven, Lethington wrote to Cecil: Mary! I see no certain way unless we chop at the very root; you know where it lieth.[47] When Mary, later, was a prisoner in England, Knox, writing to Cecil, used this very phrase, If ye strike not at the root, the branches that appear to be broken will bud again (Jan. 2, 1570). When Lethington meant to chop at the very root, on February 9, 1566, he undoubtedly intended the death of Riccio, if not of Mary.
In four days (February 13) Randolph informed Leicester of Darnleys jealousy, and adds, I know that there are practices in hand, contrived between the father and son (Lennox and Darnley), to come by the crown against her will. The crown may only mean the Crown Matrimonial, which would, apparently, give Darnley regal power for his lifetime. I know that, if that take effect which is intended, David, with the consent of the King, shall have his throat cut within these ten days. Many things grievouser and worse than these are brought to my ears: yea, of things intended against her own person[48]
The conspiracy seems to have been political and theological in its beginnings. Mary was certainly making more open show of Catholicism: very possibly to impress the French envoys who had come to congratulate her on her marriage, and to strengthen her claim on the Pope for money. But Lennox and Darnley were also parading Catholic devoutness: they had no quarrel with Mary on this head. The Protestants, however, took alarm. Darnley was, perhaps, induced to believe in Marys misconduct with Riccio after the wisest, and Lethington, had decided to chop at the very root. Ruthven and Morton then won Darnleys aid: he consented to secure Protestantism, and, by a formal band, to restore Moray and the exiles: who, in turn, recognised him as their sovereign. Randolph, banished by Mary for aiding her rebels, conspired with Bedford at Berwick, and sent copies to Cecil of the bands between Darnley and the nobles (March 6).[49]
Darnley himself, said Randolph, was determined to be present at Riccios slaying. Moray was to arrive in Edinburgh immediately after the deed. Lethington, Argyll, Morton, Boyd, and Ruthven were privy to the murder, also Moray, Rothes, Kirkcaldy, in England, with Randolph and Bedford. It is probable that others besides Riccio were threatened. There is a Band of Assurance for the Murder.[50] Darnley says that he has enlisted lords, barons, freeholders, gentlemen, merchants, and craftsmen to assist us in this enterprise, which cannot be finished without great hazard. And because it may chance that there be certain great personages present, who may make them to withstand our enterprise, wherethrough certain of them may be slain, Darnley guarantees his allies against the blood feud of the great persons. These, doubtless, are Bothwell, Atholl, and Huntly. The deed may chance to be done in presence of the Queens Majesty, or within her palace of Holyrood House. The band is dated March 1, in other texts, March 5. The indications point to a design of killing Marys nobles, while she, in her condition, might die of the shock. She was to be morally disgraced. So unscrupulous were Marys foes that Cecil told de Foix, the French Ambassador in London, how Riccio had been slain in Marys arms, reginam nefario stupro polluens.[51] Cecil well knew that this was a lie: and it is natural to disbelieve every statement of a convicted liar and traitor like Darnley.
Just before the explosion of the anti-Riccio conspiracy, Bothwell se rangea. Mary herself made a match for him (the contract is of February 9, 1566) with Lady Jane Gordon, a Catholic, a sister of Huntly, and a daughter of that Huntly who fell at Corrichie burn. The lady was only in her twentieth year. The parties being akin, a dispensation was necessary, and was granted by the Pope, and issued by the Archbishop of St. Andrews.[52] The marriage took place in the Protestant Kirk of the Canongate, though the bride was a Catholic, and Mary gave the wedding dress (February 24). The honeymoon was interrupted, on March 9, by the murder of Riccio.
The conspirators made the fatal error of not securing Bothwell and Huntly before they broke into Marys room and slew Riccio. While Bothwell, Huntly, and Atholl were at large, the forces of the Queens party had powerful friends in the North and on the Border. When the tumult of the murderers was heard, these nobles tried to fight their way to Marys assistance, but were overpowered by numbers, and compelled to seek their apartments. An attempt was made to reconcile them to the situation, but they escaped under cloud of night. In her letter to the French Court (May 1567) excusing her marriage with Bothwell, Mary speaks of his dexterity in escaping, and how suddenly by his prudence not only were we delivered out of prison, after Riccios death, but also that whole company of conspirators dissolved We could never forget it, Mary adds, and Bothwells favour had a natural and legitimate basis in the gratitude of the Queen. Very soon after the outrage she had secretly communicated with Bothwell and Huntly, who, taking no regard to hazard their lives, arranged a plan for her flight by means of ropes let down from the windows.[53] Mary preferred the passage through the basement into the royal tombs, and, by aid of Arthur Erskine and Stewart of Traquair, she made her way to Dunbar. Here Huntly, Atholl, and Bothwell rallied to her standard: Knox fled from Edinburgh, Morton and Ruthven with their allies found refuge in England: the lately exiled Lords were allowed to remain in Scotland: Darnley betrayed his accomplices, they communicated to Mary their treaties with him, and the Queen was left to reconcile Moray and Argyll to Huntly, Bothwell, and Atholl.
IV
BEFORE THE BAPTISM OF THE PRINCE
Marys task was to quieten the country, a task perhaps impossible. Her defenders might probably make a better case for her conduct and prudence, at this time, than they have usually presented. Her policy was, if possible, to return to the state of balance which existed before her marriage. She must allay the Protestants anxieties, and lean on their trusted Moray and on the wisdom of Lethington. But gratitude for the highest services compelled her to employ Huntly and Bothwell, who equally detested Lethington and Moray. Darnley was an impossible and disturbing factor in the problem. He had, publicly, on March 20, and privately, declared his innocence, which we find him still protesting in the Casket Letters. He had informed against his associates, and insisted on dragging into the tale of conspirators, Lethington, who had retired to Atholl. Moreover Mary must have despised and hated the wretch. Perhaps her hatred had already found expression.
The Lennox MSS. aver that Darnley secured Marys escape to Dunbar with great hazard and danger of his life. Claude Nau reports, on the other hand, that he fled at full speed, brutally taunting Mary, who, in her condition, could not keep the pace with him. Nau tells us that, as the pair escaped out of Holyrood, Darnley uttered remorseful words over Riccios new-made grave. The Lennox MSS. aver that Mary, seeing the grave, said it should go very hard with her but a fatter than Riccio should lie anear him ere one twelvemonth was at an end. In Edinburgh, on the return from Dunbar, Lennox accuses Mary of threatening to take revenge with her own hands. That innocent lamb (Darnley) had but an unquiet life (Lennox MSS.).
Once more, Mary had to meet, on many sides, the demand for the pardon of the Lords who had just insulted and injured her by the murder of her servant. On April 2, from Berwick, Morton and Ruthven told Throckmorton that they were in trouble for the relief of our brethren and the religion, and expected to be relieved by the help of our brethren, which we hope in God shall be shortly.[54] Moray was eager for their restoration, which must be fatal to their betrayer, Darnley. On the other side, Bothwell and Darnley, we shall see, were presently intriguing for the ruin of Moray, and of Lethington, who, still unpardoned, dared not take to the seas lest Bothwell should intercept him.[55] Bothwell and Darnley had been on ill terms in April, according to Drury.[56] But common hatreds soon drew them together, as is to be shown.
Randolphs desire was to have my Lord of Moray again in Court (April 4), and to Court Moray came.
Out of policy or affection, Mary certainly did protect and befriend Moray, despite her alleged nascent passion for his enemy, Bothwell. By April 25, Moray with Argyll and Glencairn had been received by Mary, who had forbidden Darnley to meet them on their progress.[57] With a prudence which cannot be called unreasonable, Mary tried to keep the nobles apart from her husband. She suspected an intrigue whenever he conversed with them, and she had abundant cause of suspicion. She herself had taken refuge in the Castle, awaiting the birth of her child.
Mary and Moray now wished to pardon Lord Boyd, with whom Darnley had a private quarrel, and whom he accused of being a party to Riccios murder.[58] On May 13, Randolph tells Cecil that Moray and Argyll have such misliking of their King (Darnley) as never was more of man.[59] Moray, at this date, was most anxious for the recall of Morton, who (May 24) reports, as news from Scotland, that Darnley is minded to depart to Flanders, or some other place, to complain of Marys unkindness.[60] Darnley was an obstacle to Marys efforts at general conciliation, apart from the horror of the man which she probably entertained. In England Morton and his gang had orders, never obeyed, to leave the country: Ruthven had died, beholding a Choir of Angels, on May 16.
At this time, when Mary was within three weeks of her confinement, the Lennox Papers tell a curious tale, adopted, with a bewildering confusion of dates, by Buchanan in his Detection. Lennox represents Mary as trying to induce Darnley to make love to the wife of Moray, while Bothwell alone was all in all. This anecdote is told by Lennox himself, on Darnleys own authority. The MS. is headed, Some part of the talk between the late King of Scotland and me, the Earl of Lennox, riding between Dundas and Lythkoo (Linlithgow) in a dark night, taking upon him to be the guide that night, the rest of his company being in doubt of the highway. Darnley said he had often ridden that road, and Lennox replied that it was no wonder, he riding to meet his wife, a paragon and a Queen. Darnley answered that they were not happy. As an instance of Marys ways, he reported that, just before their childs birth, Mary had advised him to take a mistress, and if possible to make my Lord (Moray) wear horns, and I assure you I shall never love you the worse. Lennox liked not the saying, but merely advised Darnley never to be unfaithful to the Queen. Darnley replied, I never offended the Queen, my wife, in meddling with any woman in thought, let be in deed. Darnley also told the story of horning Moray to a servant of his, which Moray is privy unto.
The tale of Darnleys then keeping a mistress arose, says Lennox, from the fact that one of two Englishmen in his service, brothers, each called Anthony Standen, brought a girl into the Castle. The sinner was, when Lennox wrote, in France. Nearly forty years after James VI. imprisoned him in the Tower, and he wrote a romantic memoir of which there is a manuscript copy at Hatfield.
Whatever Marys feelings towards Darnley, when making an inventory of her jewels for bequests, in case she and her child both died, she left her husband a number of beautiful objects, including the red enamel ring with which he wedded her.[61] Whatever her feelings towards Moray, she lodged him and Argyll in the Castle during her labour: Huntly and Bothwell would also have lodged there, but were refused.[62] Sir James Melville (writing in old age) declares that Huntly and Lesley, Bishop of Ross, envied the favour that the Queen showed unto the Earl of Moray, and wished her to put him in ward, as dangerous. Melville dissuaded Mary from this course, and she admitted Moray to the Castle, while rejecting Huntly and Bothwell.[63]