History Of Scotland Vol. 2 - Part 5

( Originally Published 1909 )

Mary's Escape from Lochleven—The Battle of Langside—The Queen's Flight into England—Mary offers to vindicate herself to Elizabeth—Advantage taken of that Offer—Commission at York—Question of Supremacy revived and abandoned—Proposal of a Marriage between Mary and the Duke of Norfolk—Sittings of the Commission removed to Westminster—Murray lodges his Accusation against Mary—Elizabeth declines pronouncing a decision, but detains Mary a Prisoner—Question of her Guilt and Innocence—Morton's Confession—Proofs by the Sonnets and Letters—Deemed inconclusive, and why—Confession of Paris—Elizabeth's Conduct toward Mary—A Party is formed in Scotland for the Queen—It is joined by Kirkcaldy of Grainge and Lethington—Murray betrays Norfolk to Elizabeth—The Duke is imprisoned—Murray assassinated by Bothwellhaugh—Inroads on the Borders

FATE had reserved to Queen Mary an additional chance for repairing her broken fortunes. In Lochleven Castle she was surrounded by those most deeply interested for the Earls of Murray and of Morton; and most inclined to support the power to which they had been raised. But there was one person among them who beheld her confinement and her distresses with an eye of compassion. This was a youth named George Douglas, brother of the Lord of Lochleven, who, captivated by her beauty, touched by her sorrow, and seduced by her promises, laid a plan for her escape. This was discovered by his brother, Sir James, who expelled the plotter from the castle.

Undismayed by this miscarriage, George Douglas lingered on the shores of Lochleven, to assist the queen in any subsequent effort. Mary was not long in making such an attempt. She entered a boat disguised in the attire of a laundress, but was discovered, from her repelling the endeavors by the rude boatmen to pull off her veil with arms and hands far too white to belong to one of her assumed character.

Again the queen was replaced in her island prison, but about the same time a second ally in the garrison was won over to assist her escape. This was a lad of seventeen or eighteen, called William Douglas, otherwise the Little Douglas, a relative, probably, of the Lord of Lochleven.

This little Douglas, so named from his tender years or low stature, gave her his assistance to escape by night from the castle and island in which she was immured. He stole the keys for this purpose, set the royal prisoner at liberty in the middle of the night : to prevent pursuit, locked the iron gates of the town upon its inmates, and flung the keys into the lake as he rowed her to land. George Douglas, already mentioned, Lord Seton, and a party of the Hamiltons, received the queen on the shores of the lake, and conveyed her in triumph to Hamilton, where her friends hastened to assemble an army, and form an association for her defence. The engagement was subscribed by nine earls, as many lords, and a great many persons of consequence.

Placing the queen in the centre of their numerous battalions, they moved from Hamilton toward Dumbarton. It was their intention to deposit the person of the sovereign in that impregnable castle, and then to seek out the regent and give him battle. Bat his rapid movements anticipated their moro tardy measures. Murray was at this time lying at Glasgow; and at the head of an army inferior in numbers marched to intercept the progress of the enemy toward the north. The vanguard of each army hastened forward, contending which should obtain possession of the village of Langside. They met with equal courage, and encountered with levelled lances, striving, like contending bulls, which should bear the other down. The spears of the front ranks were so fastened into each other's armor, that the staves crossed like a sort of grating, on which lay daggers, pistols, and other weapons used as missiles, which the contending parties had thrown at each other. While they were thus locked together, Morton led a detachment against the flank of the Hamiltons, and decided the day. Mary's army was broken and routed. The queen herself fled sixty miles without drawing bridle, when she arrived at Dundrennan Abbey, in Galloway.

Here, against the opinion of her wisest counsellors, Mary exercised her last act of free agency, by determining' on the perilous step of taking refuge in England, the realm of Elizabeth, her sister and her foe.

That remarkable princess was not a woman to be deterred, by scruples respecting public faith or private honor, from benefiting by the advantages which occasion had thus thrown into her lap. Mary was received by the English officers on the borders with the greatest appearance of respect; nor was Elizabeth sparing of kind expressions of comfort and friendship toward her ill-fated sister.

But when the unfortunate queen of Scotland pressed for an interview with Elizabeth, she was informed that an objection to this arose from the accusations which some of her subjects had preferred against her. Mary naturally and eagerly offered to justify herself against such charges, whatever was their character; meaning no more than to offer such explanations to the queen of England as friend gives to friend, in justifying herself from any sinister report, but certainly not intending to constitute Elizabeth her judge, or to descend from her state, and reply before the queen of England to the accusations of her subjects at the bar of her equal. Elizabeth, however, had obtained an advantage which she determined to keep; and by means of this she had an apology, such as it was, for assuming, W. her own person, the power of deciding upon Mary's guilt or innocence. The point of justice was, indeed, untenable; for the queen of England, on all occasions of rebellion against her neighbor Queen Mary, had received the fugitive insurgents into her kingdom, supplied their wants, and lent them countenance and succor, declining either to deliver them up, or enter into cognizance of their offences. Whereas, when the queen of Scotland was compelled to take refuge in her kind sister's kingdom, the worst construction was put upon the cause of her retreat, and Elizabeth, the loving ally, instantly assumed the character of the strict and awful judge.

By command of Elizabeth a commission was appointed to sit at York, having the Duke of Norfolk at its head, de-signed to inquire into the guilt or innocence of Queen Mary. Before this board, composed of English commissioners, appeared the regent, with Morton, Lindsay, the bishop of Orkney, and above all, with Secretary Maitland, the Machiavel of Scotland., The bishop of Ross, Lord Herries, Lord Boyd, and others, the most distinguished of Mary's friends, attended ou her behalf.

The first demand of Norfolk was, that the Regent Murray should do homage to the queen of England, as queen paramount of Scotland, seeing he had come voluntarily to plead as a suitor before Elizabeth's commissioners. This acknowledgment of the right of supremacy, resisted in so many centuries of bloody war, would have simplified the task of affording a foundation for Elizabeth's jurisdiction, since, if it had been admitted, she might have taken up the settlement of the disputes between the queen and subjects of Scotland, in the legitimate exercise of her power, as paramount superior, in which capacity Edward I. had decided the controversy between Bruce and Baliol. At the unexpected demand of homage, the blood rushed to Regent Murray's countenance, and he remained uncertain what to answer; but the ready wit of Lethington took up the debate. "Let England," he said, "restore to Scotland Cumberland, Northumberland, and the town of Berwick, and homage shall be done for these possessions as of old; but for the kingdom and crown of Scotland," he continued, "it is more free of dependence than England herself has been of late, while she paid Saint Peter's pence to Rome."

The sittings of the commissioners were resumed without more debate on the subject of supremacy, which the English tacitly abandoned. It might be observed, however, that there was a reluctance on the part of the regent and his associates to bring forward their defence to the accusation of rebellion against Mary, by retorting upon her the alleged offences of incontinence, and accession to the assassination of Henry Darnley. The fact was, that the fertile brain of Lethington had already devised a scheme by which the proceedings on both sides were to be guided, and which he proposed should put an end to the commission, in a manner which Elizabeth, under whose warrant it held its sittings, very little dreamed of. This project was to effect a match between Mary, her divorce from Bothwell being effected, and the Duke of Norfolk, wealthy, brave, accomplished, and at the head of a strong party among the English nobility, composed partly of Catholics and partly of Protestants, who were, for various reasons, hostile to the government and schemes of Cecil. Of this number the two great northern Earls of Westmoreland and Northumberland were particularly formidable.

The Regent Murray having in his eye the prospect of such a union must naturally have reflected that Mary, re-stored to her crown with increased security and strength, would be utterly implacable toward him, if he should render himself guilty in her eyes of having been her accuser before Elizabeth's commission at this peculiar crisis of her fate. He therefore temporized; and instead of pressing his charges against Mary, capitulated with Queen Elizabeth about the terms on which the accusation was to be brought forward; and that queen had the mortification to perceive that the regent, instead of persisting in the charge, showed some inclination to make peace with his sister, whom he had lately accused of such enormities.

Embarrassed at perceiving that Murray hesitated, Elizabeth resolved to change the scene of action, and appointed the conference of the commissioners to be removed to Westminster, that the business might be carried on under her own eye and that of Cecil. For the same purpose, without regard to Mary's requests or entreaties, she removed her from Bolton to Tutbury, that she might be more remote from her own dominions and the frontiers of England, in which districts she had many friends. She was hitherto treated honorably, but with the most secure attention to her safety.

The wily Cecil was not long in obtaining a perfect acquaintance with the negotiation between Norfolk and the regent; and he gave Murray to understand that should he continue to shrink from the task of accusation, or pursue further a line of hopeless hesitation, he would totally alien-ate his protectress Elizabeth, without having the effect of conciliating Mary, whom he had offended beyond reach of pardon. Intimidated by his threats, the regent at length preferred his charge against the queen, in the broadest terms. He accused Mary as an accessory to the murder of her husband, and as plotting the destruction of the young prince, her own son. The queen's commissioners expressed the utmost surprise and resentment at these unqualified charges. They demanded an interview of Elizabeth, and they protested against all further proceedings of the conference. The regent, in reply, was called upon to produce his proofs. This brought forward an incident famous in the controversy. In corroboration of his accusation, the Earl of Murray produced and deposited a silver box, or casket, full of love-letters, sonnets, and contracts, alleged to have passed between Mary and Bothwell during the life of her murdered husband, Henry Darnley; and contended that, with the decree of the Scottish parliament, these documents were sufficient to establish Queen Mary's guilt, and to vindicate the conduct of those who, having risen in arms against her government, now opposed her restoration.

By forcing Murray to these decisive steps, Elizabeth attained the principal object of her wishes. She had, as far as a foul charge could have such an effect, destroyed the good fame of Queen Mary, and obtained the privilege of dealing with her as one lying under the most odious suspicions, and unworthy the protection of the law of nations, This point gained, she resolved to avoid taking on herself the delicate task of declaring Mary guilty or innocent. She informed Murray, therefore, that, on the one hand, she ac-quitted him of all charges against his loyalty and honor; and that, on the other, she could not bring herself to be of opinion that he had produced any proofs of the charge against Mary sufficiently decisive to prejudice her sister in her, good opinion; on which account she had determined to leave the affairs of Scotland as she had found them. It will be observed that this decision, while in words it placed neither party in the wrong, gave Mary the same disadvantages which would have followed from an express condemnation of the queen. She remained a prisoner, although found guilty of no crime; and Murray, the accuser, though unacquitted of the charge of rebellion and calumnious slander against his sovereign, left England, after having received a considerable sum of money, with an assurance that his party in Scot-land should have the support of the English government.

But it may be asked what conclusion are readers of the present day to draw from these proceedings? and are we, with one class of writers, to conceive Queen Mary an injured saint, or with another the most profligate of women? We confess that, without more light than we at present possess, or ever hope to see thrown on a subject of so mysterious a Character, we incline to think that on both sides this memorable case has been pleaded to extremity.

The beauty, the wit, and, in general, the amiable character of Mary, has raised up for her memory defenders of equal talents and zeal. But if we review the queen's conduct from the debate at Craigmillar, concerning the proposed divorce between her and Darnley, it is difficult to believe that she must not have entertained suspicions that Many persons of an unscrupulous character were not indisposed, when that measure was rejected, to remove the unfortunate prince from his share of the throne by the readiest and most violent means, if legal and justifiable expedients would not serve the turn. The reconciliation between the husband and wife, after their long estrangement, which was patched up so suddenly and immediately before the murder, the violence offered to the queen's person by Bothwell, and so tamely acquiesced in by a female of such high rank and energetic character, are to us irresistible evidence that Mary, deeply injured by her ungrateful husband, and engaged by an unhappy attachment to one of the most wicked of men, suffered Darnley, without warning or succor, to fall into the conspirators' snares, if, indeed, she did not herself entice him, into the toils. Revenge and love are great casuists; and supposing Mary so far concerned in Darnley's death as to foresee its approach without endeavoring to prevent it, she might endeavor to justify her conduct to herself, by considering that by his accession to the murder of her servant in her own presence her ungrateful . husband deserved death, and that she at least was not obliged to give the alarm when a deserved punishment seemed about to overwhelm him. The evident favor shown to Bothwell on his sham trial, the too obvious farce of the seizure of the queen at Fountain Bridge, and her subsequent marriage with Both-well, all lead to the same melancholy conclusion. And when we recollect that Mary had been educated in the profligate court of Catherine of Medicis, and was surrounded in her own by some of the worst and most wicked men who ever lived, he who can suppose that, tempted by love and revenge, she walked through the maze of iniquity occurring between Rizzio's death and her marriage with Bothwell without soiling the purity of her mind with the guilt which was so thick around her path, must have unusual confidence in human nature.

But though we are compelled to admit that a long train of coherent circumstances seems to evince that Mary was at least by tacit acquiescence an accomplice in Darnley's fate, we are not much moved by what has been termed the actual proof of her guilt and which was produced as such before the commission.

The documents contained in the silver box are the only direct testimony tending to involve Mary in Darnley's murder ; and setting these aside for the present, there remains little which can directly implicate the queen.

At a later period, indeed, Morton, an unprincipled and fierce man, who, according to his own account on the scaffold, was privy to the whole bloody scene, says, that being invited to join Bothwell and Lethington in a scheme against Darnley's life, he refused to engage in the plot unless Both-well would obtain an injunction upon him to that effect from the queen herself. But hé proceeds to declare that Both-well never was able to produce such a warrant. Here, therefore, the chain of direct evidence is broken, and the positive proof of Mary's guilt is not to be found. Laying Morton's direct oral testimony aside as being inconclusive, we come next to the celebrated casket and papers.

These letters and writings produced would indeed prove a great deal more than enough for conviction if they stood unimpeached as authentic documents. But great and serious suspicions attach to their authenticity. The internal evidence is unfavorable according to our ideas of the style of a sovereign expressing her attachment. They are described with suspicious variations, sometimes as being written by the queen's own hand, sometimes as being only subscribed by her. Above all, though their authenticity was challenged, and though the regent and his associates had in their power the persons through whose hands they were said to have passed, yet no care whatever was taken, by examination of any of these persons, to ascertain or corroborate the faith of documents so important to the cause of the accusers. The obvious and legal inference is, that where that is not proved which ought to have been verified, it must have been for want of the means of probation. It is notorious that these letters and papers had been long enough in the hands of the queen's enemies to have been tampered with to any extent ; and the productions of copies and translations, instead of originals, is totally foreign to our ideas of judicial proceedings. Nay, there was so little attention to authenticate the casket or the documents contained, that although Dalgleish, the messenger from whose person they were alleged to be taken, was tried and executed for accession to Darnley's murder, not a single question was put to him either at his trial, or at his death, which could tend to prove he had ever seen them. His confession, also, which candidly admits his share in Darnley's murder, contains not a word respecting these papers. The only evidence of their having been taken on the person of this man was the declaration of Morton, who, if they were forged, was undoubtedly a person most deeply interested in the fabrication.

The queen, also, when she alleged that these manuscripts were forgeries, observed that there were many in her kingdom who could imitate her handwriting; and it was believed that Maitland possessed that accomplishment in a supreme degree.

Another document of direct evidence preferred against the queen was the confession of Paris, a Frenchman, and a servant of her household, who is represented as having given testimony respecting the circumstances of a conference with Bothwell, which, compared with the subsequent directions received by Paris from Mary regarding the delivery of the keys of the king's lodgings at the Kirk of Field, seems distinctly probative of the queen's knowledge of the murder before the fact. But to this also lies the same objection of a strong suspicion of forgery; and there arises the greater doubt on the subject, that certainly if Paris had been actually disposed to make such an important confession, his life ought to have been preserved, that he might deliver his evidence before parliament or in an unprejudiced court, allowing every chance to the royal person accused of so hideous a crime of disproving it by cross-examination or otherwise. The death of a miserable domestic, whose life was at all times in their hands, ought to have been deferred until his testimony had been publicly given, carefully investigated, and formally recorded. The fact of having put Paris instantly to death, with every other person connected with the murder, resembles the art of the usurper in the play who stabs the warders of Duncan lest a public examination should produce other sentiments in the minds of the judges than those which he who really committed the crime desired should be inferred.

On the whole, the direct evidence produced in support of Mary's alleged guilt was liable to such important objections that it could not now be admitted to convict a felon for the most petty crime; and there is surely no equity in receiving it as absolutely conclusive against a queen. We have already stated our opinion of the moral proof of deep delusion, or perhaps actual guilt, arising from Mary's own conduct; but we own that our strong suspicions, arising from her favor to Bothwell, her union with that profligate man, and the time and circumstances of the marriage, are rather weakened than confirmed by the attempts to corroborate it by positive evidence of so very suspicious a description. When original documents are suppressed, and alleged copies only produced, when minutes of confessions privately obtained under threats of torture are urged as profs, and the witnesses themselves, who might have given open testimony, removed by precipitate execution, the loose and improbable character of the evidence throws a suspicion over the whole proceeding, which goes far to neutralize the presumption of guilt arising out of the circumstances; and as it evinces foul practices used in order to convict the queen, it must necessarily induce us to lean to the side of acquittal. Queen Elizabeth was probably sensible of this when, by the result of the investigation, she saw herself obliged to acknowledge that the Scottish queen had come off guiltless from the charge brought by Murray and her rebel subjects; and the number and character of those who asserted Mary's cause in Scotland plainly intimates that a great part of her subjects were in no respect disposed to be considered as having faith in the evidence which later historians have received as conclusive against her.

The inquiry had terminated favorably for Mary, in so far that Elizabeth confessed by her own answer to both par-ties that she saw no grounds for the charges with which the Scottish queen had been loaded. It seemed to follow that a queen now pronounced to be guiltless, who had taken refuge in the dominions of a sister and ally in a moment of extreme necessity, should have been either received with honor or dismissed with safety. But, contrary to the laws of hospitality observed in the most barbarous nations, contrary to the tenor of a thousand declarations of friendship and even sisterly fondness, the queen of England determined not to enfranchise her prisoner, though she had dismissed the accusation under pretext of which she had at first refused to admit her to her presence. She was indeed so bold in availing herself of the advantage she had gained as to seem little anxious to justify the right to detain her captive, being fully possessed of the power.

Mary, therefore, was sent from Bolton Castle to Tutbury; and that no circumstance of meanness might be omitted, the royal captive had reason to complain even of the niggard temper of Elizabeth, which hardly allowed her prisoner fitting means of transport or adequate support, while she dragged her from one prison to another in inclement weather, and through the most rugged roads.

Leaving Mary to her melancholy fate, our narrative must follow Murray to Scotland. His presence there had become needful to the support of his own party; for the lords who were attached to Queen Mary having recovered from the terrors inspired by the battle of Langside were threatening again to take up arms. Murray averted the immediate danger by seizing on the Duke of Chatelherault and Lord Herries, and sending them prisoners to Edinburgh Castle. But the queen's party continued to assume a menacing appearance. Their leaders were much encouraged by the intrigues carried on by the Duke of Norfolk for the purpose of obtaining Mary's hand. Two men of eminence, who had been Murray's especial friends, were deeply engaged in .this plot. The first was Maitland of Lethington, who was the original inventor of the scheme ; the other, Sir William Kirkcaldy of Grainge, famed for his military talent, and not less so for a generosity of disposition which was by no means a characteristic of the period. He had been displeased at the severe conduct of the lords toward the queen, after she surrendered to him at Carberry Hill, and dismissed her army upon his warrant of respectful treatment and good usage. And although he afterward fought against her at the battle of Langside, yet, unconvinced of Mary's guilt, or supposing that it had been expiated by her sufferings, or yielding, perhaps, to the wonderful influence which the ingenuity of Lethington possessed over the minds of all to whom he found access, he was now disposed to join in any honorable expedient which might obtain Mary's liberty and forward her restoration. Grainge, being governor of Edinburgh Castle, wherein were detained the noblemen whom Murray had lately made prisoners of state, his friendship was, at such a crisis, of the last consequence to the party to which he should finally attach himself. He declared himself the protector of these captives as well as of Maitland of Lethington, whom he received into the castle, and who became, as usual, the soul of all the intrigues which were carried on between the parties.

The arrival of the regent in Scotland disconcerted these counsels. Murray had been made privy to the proposed marriage between Norfolk and Mary, and had given his assent to it while at York. But since that period he had openly stood forward as the accuser of his sister, and could no longer hope either safety for the future or indemnity for the past should she ever again ascend the throne. He there-fore dishonorably betrayed to Elizabeth the whole treaty as it had been communicated to him by Norfolk, and thus furnished the English queen with proofs on which the duke was arrested and detained a prisoner. Immediately upon this arrest, which was regarded as inferring Elizabeth's perfect knowledge of the various plans which had been agitated among the malcontent lords, the Earls of Westmoreland and Northumberland, Catholics, and friends, of course, to the Scottish queen, arose in open rebellion, with the avowed purpose of liberating Mary and restoring the popish religion. But this insurrection, though in the outset extremely formidable, sunk and died away like a fire of straw before the active and vigorous measures of Queen Elizabeth. The two leaders fled to Scotland, where Northumberland fell into the power of the regent, by whom he was imprisoned in Lochleven Castle. The Earl of Westmoreland escaped abroad, and died beyond seas. This unsuccessful attempt at rebellion greatly broke the power of the Catholics in England, and confirmed the sway of Elizabeth, as the bursting of an imposthume often restores the vigor of the human constitution.

Murray, strengthened by Elizabeth's arms, and bold in her protection, was taking measures to complete the subjugation of the queen's party, and negotiating to have Mary's own person delivered into his hands by the queen of England, when be lost his life by the vengeance of an individual. Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, a man distinguished for a vindicti ve disposition in an age when revenge was accounted a virtue and a duty, had with many of that name been made prisoner at the battle of Langside. With the other captives he had been doomed to death after the battle, and, like others, he had received pardon from the regent. But though Bothwellhaugh had been thus far favorably treated, a separate property belonging to him had been declared forfeited, and was conferred by Murray upon one of his favorites, who, brutally eager to obtain possession, drove the wife of Bothwellhaugh, then recently delivered of a child, half naked into the fields, where she became ere morning furiously mad. Her husband vowed vengeance on the regent as the original author of the injury; and the Hamiltons, his kinsmen, who had so much reason to hate and fear the present ruler of Scotland, encouraged him by applauding and abetting his design. Having taken singularly accurate measures for effecting his purpose and his escape, he lurked in an empty lodging in the street of Linlithgow, mortally 'wounded the Earl of Murray by a shot from a carabine as he rode through the town, and, though closely pursued, got in safety to France.

There is every reason to suppose that the crime of an individual had been countenanced and prompted by the spirit of a faction as well as of a powerful family. On the very night when the murder was committed, Buccleuch and Farniherst, chiefs of the names of Scott and Kerr, borderers, of the queen's party, invaded England with unusual fury, with the purpose, doubtless, of producing a breach between the two nations. One of the depredators showed that the party were conscious of the act which had taken place; for being asked by an Englishman how he, would answer that night's work to the regent, who was wont to be a terror to the border plunderers, he replied, "Tush, man! your regent is cold as the iron bit in my horse's mouth."