Mary, Queen of Scots (52 page)

Having named Morton, Ruthven, Lindsay, Sempill, Maitland and MacGill as “some who were more enemies than friends,” Bothwell states that, “when my enemies and other opponents heard that I had been completely acquitted and had won the day, they at once came round begging me not to proceed against them for all the false charges they had brought against me. But their words did not reflect in any way the thoughts in their hearts, as I have since had reason to know.”
¹⁷
Their support during his trial, which had been given in the interests of their own self-preservation, had led Bothwell to believe that they were still his allies.

As he left the Tolbooth, Bothwell defiantly “fixed a cartel to the door,” on which was written a challenge, “wherein he offered to fight in single contest against any gentleman undefamed that durst charge him with the murder.”
¹⁸
He then sent a town crier around Edinburgh to proclaim the verdict and had placards and letters bearing his own seal and repeating his challenge posted around the city, daring all comers to meet him in combat to “be taught the truth.”
¹⁹

Bothwell claims that “not a man took up my challenge,” but in fact, on the following day, he received three anonymous answers: one calling him “the chief author of the foul and horrible murder,” while the second named James, Robert and Gilbert Balfour, Archibald Beaton, Spens, Borthwick and Sandy Durham as devisers with him of the murder, and Ormiston, Beanston, Hepburn, Hay, the Blackadders, Cullen, Wilson and four others as active accomplices; at the foot of this were three lines linking Mary with Bothwell in murder and adultery:

Is it not enough the poor King is dead,
But the wicked murderers occupy his stead,
And double adultery has all this land shamed?

The third answer, which was stuck to the Mercat Cross, stated, “There is none that professes Christ and His Evangel that can with upright conscience part Bothwell and his wife, albeit she prove him an abominable adulterer and worse, as he has murdered the husband of her he intends to marry, whose promise he had long before the murder.”
²⁰

Since these answers were all anonymous, there was nothing that Bothwell could do about them.

On 14 April, Parliament met. The Queen was not present on this occasion,
²¹
but two days later, she made her first public appearance since Darnley’s death, going in procession to the Tolbooth, accompanied by Argyll, Morton, Huntly, Bothwell and others, and surrounded by arquebusiers instead of the bailies of Edinburgh, as was customary. Bothwell, as Lord Admiral, rode before the Queen, bearing her sceptre. Melville says that, having been acquitted, Bothwell “remained still the greatest favourite at court,” and when Parliament appointed the Lords of the Articles, who were responsible for preparing the business of the Estates, his name was among them, along with those of Morton, Argyll, Huntly and twelve others.
²²

Parliament’s business began in earnest on the 17th. Dunbar Castle was formally secured to Bothwell as a reward for his great and manifold service to the Crown, but there is no record of his acquittal being ratified, as he later asserted in his memoirs.
²³

Moray had reached London on 16 April. The next day, according to de Silva,
²⁴
he “was with the Queen for a long time, but I have not been able to learn what passed. It is announced that he will go by Germany to Genoa, or else by way of France, where some people think he will remain.” On the 19th, Moray visited de Silva at his house, and it was on this occasion that he told him that he had left Scotland because he feared “something unpleasant might befall him” through the machinations of Bothwell. He referred disparagingly to the delay in punishing Darnley’s murderers, and, “although he did not name any particular person, it was easy to understand by his discourse that he considers Bothwell to be guilty.”

De Silva asked Moray if the statement about the divorce between Bothwell and his wife was true, and he said it was. As he tells the story, it appears to be a somewhat novel form of divorce, as it is on the petition of the wife. They had been married hardly a year and a half, and she alleges adultery. I asked him whether there had been any ill treatment or quarrel to account for the divorce, to which he replied that there had been none, but that the wife had taken proceedings at the instance of her brother Huntly, who, to curry favour with Bothwell, had persuaded her to do so, and, at Bothwell’s request, the Earl was to be restored to his position in the Parliament.

This, of course, is at variance with Drury’s earlier report that Huntly misliked the divorce and had had to be persuaded to agree to it.

Moray told de Silva “he had heard that the divorce would be effected in order that the Queen might marry Bothwell, but he did not believe it, considering the Queen’s position and her great virtue, as well as the events which have taken place. It really seems improbable, she being a Catholic, and the divorce for such a reason as that alleged.” We may infer from this that, despite what was later written about Mary under Moray’s auspices, he still had a good opinion of her.

De Silva later discussed the matter with the French ambassador, but the latter was “certain that, if the divorce is effected, the Queen will marry [Bothwell].”

The Scottish Parliament met for its last day of business on 19 April, when the Queen finally ratified the Acts of the Reformation Parliament of 1560; since she had hitherto refused to do so, her capitulation on this issue has been seen as a concession to the Protestant establishment in return for its support for her marriage to Bothwell, but there is no credible evidence that Mary had any intention of marrying Bothwell at this time. Her ratification may well have been the result of Bothwell taking advantage of her weakened state to pressurise her into it, on the basis that—as Buchanan believed—this measure would go some way towards soothing public opinion after the Earl’s acquittal.

Parliament also confirmed grants of land and restitutions to Huntly, Sir Richard Maitland, David Chalmers and others, as well as Moray’s title to his earldom and Mar’s governorship of Stirling Castle. An Act was passed making it a capital offence to set up or even read seditious placards, and eleven forfeitures, including Morton’s, were reduced; nine benefited members of the Gordon family.
²⁵
This has been seen as an attempt by Mary to buy support for Bothwell’s divorce, but as it had been her intention since 1565 to formally restore Huntly to his lands, she could hardly exempt the rest of his family from the general reversal of attainders.

The distribution of favours by Parliament to several persons implicated in Darnley’s murder suggests that Bothwell and the other Protestant Lords were now in control and that the Queen virtually did as she was bidden. Bothwell’s word was more or less law, and according to a letter written by Kirkcaldy of Grange to Bedford on 8 May,
²⁶
“the most part of the nobility, for fear of their lives, granted sundry things against their honours and consciences.”

On the day Parliament rose, Drury reported that the man who had cried for vengeance in the night had been arrested and “shut up in a prison which they call, for the loathsomeness of the place, the foul thief’s pit.”
²⁷
He also reported the secret murder and burial of “a servant of James Balfour (who was at the murder of the King), supposed upon very lively presumptions for utterance of some matter, either by remorse of conscience or other folly, that might tend to the whole discovery of the King’s death.” The implication was, of course, that Balfour had murdered him. Drury added that Balfour, “for some fear he conceives, keeps his house, especially in the night, under great watch and guard.”
²⁸
In the wake of the placards that continued to link him to Darnley’s murder, Balfour doubtless feared reprisals on the part of a vengeful citizenry.

Bothwell had decided that the time was now ripe to bring his plans to fruition. On the evening of the day when Parliament rose, he gave a supper for the Lords. The venue is disputed, but most accounts state it took place at Ainslie’s Tavern in Edinburgh, the site of which is now unknown. The
Book
of Articles
asserts that the supper was held in Bothwell’s lodging in Holyrood Palace, in an obvious attempt to imply the Queen’s collusion, but this was probably not big enough to accommodate such a large company.

The purpose of this supper was not just the celebration of Bothwell’s acquittal. When the guests were suitably replete with food and wine, Bothwell produced a bond and asked them to subscribe to it. This bond was to serve as proof of their support for Bothwell against his enemies, and, more importantly, for his marriage to the Queen. The latter part of it read:

Weighing and considering the time present, and how our sovereign the Queen’s Majesty is now destitute of an husband, in the which solitary state the commonwealth of this realm may not permit Her Highness to continue and endure, but at some time Her Highness may be inclined to yield unto a marriage; and therefore, in case the former affectionate and hearty service of the said Earl done to Her Majesty from time to time and his other good qualities and behaviour may move Her Majesty so far to humble herself as preferring one of her native-born subjects unto all foreign princes, to take to husband the said Earl, we, and every one of us undersubscribing, upon our honours and fidelity, promise not only to advance and set forward the marriage with our votes, counsel, fortification and assistance in word and deed at such time as it shall please Her Majesty to think it convenient; but in case any would presume directly or indirectly, openly or under whatsoever colour or pretence, to hinder, hold back or disturb the same marriage, we shall in that behalf esteem, hold and repute the hinderers, adversaries or disturbers thereof as our common enemies and evil willers; and, notwithstanding the same, take part and fortify the said Earl to the said marriage, so far as it may please our Sovereign Lady to allow.
²⁹

The last sentence suggests that Bothwell’s plans hinged upon Mary’s consent to the marriage, which had yet to be given. It would have been logical for him to wait until he was cleared of Darnley’s murder before approaching her, and he desired the support of the Lords not only as an insurance for the future, but also as ammunition with which to persuade the Queen to the marriage. If it had the consent of her nobility, she might well give serious consideration to it.

The surprising thing is that most of the Lords present at the supper, both Protestant and Catholic, signed the bond. The original bond, on which there were supposed to be 28 or 29 signatures, no longer exists, but the lists of signatories on the surviving copies do not agree, so it is not possible to be absolutely certain as to who the signatories were. The copy attested by Balfour lists Archbishop Hamilton and the Bishops of Ross, Aberdeen, Galloway, Dunblane, Brechin, Orkney and the Isles,
³⁰
the Earls of Argyll, Huntly, Morton, Cassilis, Sutherland, Errol, Crawford, Caithness and Rothes, and Lords Boyd, Glamis, Ruthven, Sempill, Ogilvy, Herries and Fleming. Ruthven, however, is known not to have signed.

The list made by Buchanan’s clerk, John Reed, for Cecil in 1568,
³¹
which was compiled from memory, differs: Moray’s name heads the list of earls, although he was out of the country at the time and Mary’s confessor later confirmed to de Silva that Moray had not signed the original Bond;
³²
Errol, Crawford, Glamis, Ruthven and Fleming do not appear, and Glencairn (who was not in Edinburgh just then), Seton, Sinclair, Oliphant, Home, Ross of Halkhead, Carlyle and Innermeith are added.
³³
Home was Bothwell’s rival and is unlikely to have signed. Maitland’s signature is not included in either list, and Mar’s was not sought. Lord Eglinton, a Catholic supporter of the Queen, “subscribed not but slipped away,”
³⁴
while Melville rejected “the large offers made by the Earl of Bothwell when he desired me to subscribe with the rest of his flatterers” and “chose rather to lay myself open to his hatred and revenge.”

Bothwell claimed in his memoirs that the Lords “came to me entirely of their own account and did me the honour of offering their support and friendship”; they told him “that they would never agree to [the Queen] marrying a foreigner, [and] said that I was the most worthy of her in the kingdom. They had thought it over and had decided to do all they could to bring about such a marriage.” Yet in 1568, the Lords told Elizabeth’s Commissioners that they had not signed the bond until Bothwell had produced a warrant from the Queen authorising them to do so.
³⁵

However, it is more likely that Bothwell persuaded them to sign either by getting them drunk, or by bribery, promises of patronage to come or intimidation. It was alleged that his 200 arquebusiers had surrounded the tavern and could be seen through the windows, but Grange does not mention them, or the Queen’s warrant, in a letter sent to Bedford the following day, reporting the events of the evening before.
³⁶
Nau was probably correct when he wrote that “some helped [Bothwell] honestly through friendship, others from fear, being in dread of their lives; others dissembled, meaning through him to carry out their own secret ends and private designs.” More sinisterly, though, he claims that the Queen’s enemies, “having used [Bothwell] to rid themselves of the King, designed to make [him] their instrument to ruin the Queen”; they had therefore signed the bond to induce her to marry Bothwell “so that they might charge her with being in the plot against her late husband and a consenting party to his death.” This later became the accepted Catholic view of the matter, and may not be far from the truth.

The following day, according to Buchanan, some Lords regretted signing the bond and frankly declared that, if they had not believed that it would please the Queen, they would never have assented. For besides that the business was not very honest, there was always the danger that (as they remembered with her former husband) a quarrel might occur and Bothwell might be thrown aside. Then they themselves might become criminals for having betrayed the Queen and compelled her to enter into an unworthy marriage. Therefore, before the matter was settled, they thought it necessary to ascertain her wishes and obtain a statement signed by her own hand to the effect that what they had done in respect of the marriage was agreeable to her. This was easily obtained, and it was entrusted to the Earl of Argyll.