176

DEATH OF DARNLEY (FEB. 10, 1567).

jacent garden.

The contemporary opinion unanimously averred that Darnley had been strangled or choked, with his servant, and that their bodies were carried into the garden. A large commemorative picture, painted for Lennox, represents the assassins seizing Darnley in bed. If this was done, the accomplices of Bothwell denied all knowledge of it; and though Archbishop Hamilton is accused (by Buchanan) of sending ruffians to do the deed, we have no evidence on the point. Mary's accusers altered their versions, and their charges, just as in each case seemed most convenient. 105

"Over the events of that night," says Mr Froude, a horrible mist still hangs, unpenetrated and impenetrable for ever." This is, indeed, true; but Mr Froude's detailed narrative of the events about which so little is known must remain a classical passage in English literature. This great writer has felt himself justified in constructing a story out of the disputable and sometimes self-contradictory confessions of the underlings executed for the murder, and out of the Casket letters, the epistles which her accusers declare that Mary wrote to Bothwell. These sources of information are untrustworthy. Many of the "pursuers" of Bothwell were themselves deep in the plot others, their allies, if personally guiltless, were acquainted with their partners' guilt. Thus the confessions of Bothwell's minor accomplices were garbled, to conceal the crime of Lethington, Sir James Balfour, and the Douglases, till the party of the accusers broke up, when evidence was at once produced, or manufactured, against the deserters. The chief points of doubt are, whether Darnley was killed by the explosion, or strangled and removed into the garden before the explosion occurred. If the latter theory be correct (and it is that of the author of the 'Diurnal,' writing at the moment, as well as of Drury, and Moretta, the Ambassador of Savoy, and all contemporaries), then two gangs were engaged: Bothwell's party, which blew up the house; and another party, probably under Morton's cousin, Archibald Douglas, brother of Douglas of Whittingham. But this element of the inquiry

was burked by the allied lords under Murray.

Secondly, Was the gunpowder placed in Mary's bedroom, under that of Darnley, or "under the ground, and corner-stones, and within the vaults," as the indictment against Morton runs? This is the story given also by Buchanan in his Detection.' 106 In this latter case the guilt of Mary is not so apparent as if the

"JESU! PARIS, HOW BEGRIMED YOU ARE!" 177

powder was placed in her bedroom, according to the confession.

of Paris and other culprits. An interminable historical quarrel rages around these questions. The curious point is that Buchanan speaks of a mine, yet gives two confessions which allege that the powder lay in Mary's bedroom. The authenticity of the various confessions has been disputed. We may feel certain that they were not forged in the mass; on the other hand, omissions were certainly made, and torture was certainly applied. The discrepancies in statement are numerous; but they are defended on the ground that statements without discrepancies would be a proof of correctness introduced by collusion.

As an example of the methods employed: the English edition of Buchanan's 'Detection' contains certain dying confessions made on January 3, 1568. But we do not find in these what the 'Diurnal' records—namely, Hay of Talla's confession, "in presence of the whole people," that Bothwell, Huntly, Argyll, Lethington, Sir James Balfour, and others made a band for Darnley's death, "to which the queen's grace consented": a remark made, doubtless, on the strength of oral information, true or false, from Bothwell. 107 The second confession of Paris (1569), obviously under torture or fear of torture, contains assertions about his open discussion of the deed with Mary which border on the incredible. While the depositions and confessions attest the strewing of the powder in Mary's bedroom, every account of the effects of the explosion makes it seem more probable that the powder was really laid in the vaults on which old Scottish houses are usually built. Hepburn of Bowton's confession that Bothwell, till within a day or two of the murder, meant to slay Darnley "in the fields," harmonises ill with the passages in which Paris makes Bothwell examine the entrances of the house, and provide fourteen false keys, a fortnight before the explosion. Where the evidence is so perplexed and veiled, certainty is impossible.108 On the author's mind the impression that Darnley and his page were strangled, not blown for many yards through the air, is decidedly the stronger. The account of Nau, Mary's secretary, published by Father Stevenson, is seldom cited here: it is what Mary wished to be believed. But Nau's statement that Mary, seeing Paris after he had been at work with the powder, exclaimed, "Jesu! Paris, how begrimed you are," has a natural ring about it; and, unluckily, if Paris was begrimed, then Mary ought to have inferred that his master, Bothwell, was the murderer.

VOL. II.

M

7 Teulet, ii. 93. Compare Hay Fleming, pp. 380, 381.

It

20 Calendar, ii. 228; Froude, vii. 348, 349; Melville, 135, 136 (1827). appears that Mr Froude read "she" in place of "he" in the official report. Calendar, ii. 228, line 25, "whyther he were ever privee," et seq.

21 Knox, ii. 513.

22 Calendar, ii. 217, Cockburn to Cecil, October 2.

23 Calendar, November 8, ii. 235.

24 Calendar, ii. 242.

25 Knox, ii. 520; Randolph in Calendar, ii. 236-241. 26 Buchanan, fol. 210.

28 Privy Council Register, i. 413.

27 Keith, ii. 399.

29 Calendar, ii. 248.

30 Lennox MSS. in Cambridge University Library.

31 Hay Fleming, p. 382. M'Crie, citing Lochleven Papers.

32 Privy Council Register, i. 338-343.

33 Labanoff, i. 281.

35 Privy Council Register, i. 372.

34 Knox, ii. 283.

36 Keith, ii. 412, 413.

37 Forbes Leith, Narratives of Scottish Catholics, p. 108.

38 Calendar, ii. 247.

39 Labanoff, vii. 107.

40 Hay Fleming, p. 380. The conflicting evidence may be studied in Dr Hay Fleming's work, pp. 379, 380.

41 Stevenson, Selections, pp. 153-159. 43 Papal Negotiations, xxxviii-xliii.

4 Knox, ii. 520.

46 Goodall, i. 274.

42 Froude, vii. 369.

45 Keith, iii. 260.

47 Bain's Calendar, ii. 255.

48 See Papal Negotiations with Queen Mary, section vii., and the Lennox Papers (MS.) in 'The Mystery of Mary Stuart.'

49 This letter was in Mr Dawson Turner's Collection: was printed (twenty copies) by him in 'Maitland's Narrative,' a very rare book, and is cited by Tytler, vii. 23.

50 Drury to Cecil, February 16, 1565; Keith, iii. 403-405.

exiles signed in England. The MS

51 Keith, ii. 261-264. Murray and the "band" with their signatures is at Melville House, in Fife.

59 Bedford and Randolph, in Wright's Elizabeth, i. 226. Ruthven, in various editions. Mary to Beaton, Keith, ii. 411-423. In Keith Ruthven is somewhat abridged, iii. 260-278. See bibliography in Hay Fleming, pp. 387-390.

60 It was expected that Darnley and Mary should pass the night together. But Darnley could not be roused; he may have been drunk. Compare Bedford and Randolph in Wright's Elizabeth,' i. 229, with Ruthven, Keith, iii. 274, 275. Randolph and Bedford have confused the story.

61 For. Cal. Eliz., 1566, p. 45.

62 Calendar, ii. 273.

63 See a curious little proof of Lethington's complicity, Calendar, ii. 268, 269. It is only "case" spelled "caas," but confirms Randolph's evidence.

64 Calendar, ii. 269, 270.

65 Privy Council Register, i. 452-454.

66 Randolph, For. Cal. Eliz., May 2, 1566, 59.

67 Calendar, ii. 277.

69 Hume Brown, Knox, ii. 310.

68 Calendar, ii. 278.

70 The Inventory was admirably edited by Joseph Robertson, for the Bannatyne Club.

71 Calendar, ii. 278.

72 Calendar, ii. 296.

73 Mystery of Mary Stuart, pp. 73-79, with the authorities.

84 Laing, ii. 331, 334; Nau, p. 35; Bain, Calendar, ii. 599, 600; Randolph, October 15, 1570, For. Cal. Eliz., ix. 354, 355; Mystery of Mary Stuart, pp. 87-93. 85 Keith, ii. 449. 86 Teulet, ii. 150.

87 Knox, ii. 533, 534. Compare Hay Fleming, p. 415, note 63.

88 Laing, ii. 25.

90 Diurnal, p. 100.

89 Labanoff, i. 369.

91 See Hay Fleming, p. 416.

92 Keith, iii. 285, 286; Papal Negotiations, p. 306 and note 1.

93 Diurnal, pp. 101, 102.

95 Keith, i. xcvi, December 2.

94 Detection.

96 Hay Fleming, p. 422; Anderson, iv. pt. ii. p. 186.

97 Keith, iii. 290-294; Goodall, ii. 359. 98 Keith, iii. 294.

In Anderson, ii. 10-12.

99 Diurnal, pp. 127, 128.

100 See Hay Fleming, p. 420; Froude, vii. 491.

101 For. Cal. Eliz., 1567, p. 164; Bain, Calendar, ii. 310. 102 Keith, i. xcix, ci.

104 Mystery of Mary Stuart, pp. xiii-xviii.

103 Birrel's and the 'Diurnal.'

105 Lennox MSS.; Diurnal; Birrel's Detectio; Actio; Buchanan's Historia; Labanoff, vii. 108, 109 (version of Moretta, the Ambassador of Savoy); Sir James Melville, p. 174.

106 Laing, ii. 320.

107 See also (September 5, 1567) Bedford to Cecil, on Talla's declarations. 108 The depositions and confessions in Laing may be compared with M. Phillipson's curious and ingenious criticism in 'Révue Historique,' xxxv-xxxvii. Want of local knowledge led M. Philippson into an error about the House of Callendar, Lord Livingstone's place, which he confused with the town of Callendar. Mr Hosack's criticisms, in his 'Mary, Queen of Scots,' i. 239-266, are also valuable. New material, from Lennox's MSS., is given in the author's 'Mystery of Mary Stuart.'

CHAPTER VIII.

THE PRISONS OF MARY STUART.

1567-1568.

AN affair so important as the murder of the queen's husband was certain to leak out before its execution. Murray probably knew what was being conspired. Morton, before his execution in 1581, admitted that Bothwell had tried to enlist him; but he would not join without Mary's signed warrant, which Bothwell could not procure. Overtures were again made to him by Archibald Douglas, his cousin, who was with him later, when the famous silver casket with Mary's letters was broken open and inspected. Morton admitted that he did not try to dissuade his cousin from the deed, nor cease to associate with him, though Archibald was confessedly present on the scene of the crime of Kirk-o'-Field. Yet Morton it was who led the prosecution of Mary.1 Morton confessedly signed a band to aid Bothwell if he were charged with the murder. On the scaffold he exclaimed, "I testify before God I have professed the evangel." Another of the murderers, Ormiston, a man of abominable life, thanked God, for, said he, "I am assured that I am one of His Elect." 2 Clearly these men expected to be saved by faith, not by works. Such were the conspirators, active or passive. Mary's attitude appears from her letter, or the letter written for her by Lethington, to her ambassador in France on February 11. Beaton had warned her to look closely to her safety, and, taking the cue, she thanked him for the advice, and said that the suspected plot had partially failed. She had lately slept in Kirk-o'-Field: the criminals expected her to do so again on that Sunday night, but she "of very chance tarried not all night, by reason of some masque at Holyrood;