26

“I AM NO ENCHANTRESS”

WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF GEORGE Douglas, Lord John Hamilton, and an orphaned kinsman of George’s, William Douglas, who stole the Laird’s keys, a disguised Mary got out of Lochleven on 2 May 1568, while the household was diverted by a May Day pageant. She was met on the further shore of the loch by Lord Seton, Alexander Hepburn, Laird of Riccarton, who was Bothwell’s cousin, and Lord Claude Hamilton (another of Chatelherault’s sons) and taken to Seton’s castle at Niddry,¹two miles north of Broxburn in West Lothian. From there, she sent Riccarton to recapture Dunbar Castle from the Lords, and dispatched two messengers, one to Archbishop Beaton in Paris, informing him of her liberation, and the other to Frederick II to demand Bothwell’s release.²

Moray was in Glasgow when the news of Mary’s escape was brought to him. “Sore amazed,” he immediately issued a proclamation summoning the lieges to arms.³Sir William Douglas was suicidal, but after bungling an attempt to fall on his dagger, pulled himself together and began raising troops to send in pursuit of his prisoner.

On 3 May, Mary led her growing force west to Cadzow Castle near Hamilton, the chief seat of the Hamilton family,⁴where she was joined by several nobles. Here, Archbishop Hamilton helped her to draft a strongly worded proclamation repudiating her abdication, reasserting her lawful sovereignty, and condemning the “ungrateful, unthankful and detestable tyrants and treasonable traitors” who had deposed and imprisoned her, “whom no prince, for their perpetrated murders, could pardon or spare.” The proclamation also named the Hamiltons Mary’s next heirs after Prince James. The Hamiltons had masterminded her rescue, and she was now dependent on them; they were determined to wring every advantage from it, and in the event of this restoration succeeding, they expected to be the power behind the throne. Mary was well aware of this, and because she was unwilling to burn her boats and bind herself to them, she never made the contentious proclamation public. Instead, she gave the Hamiltons to believe that she was considering a marriage with Lord John Hamilton.

Mary now wrote to Moray, demanding that, as she had abdicated under duress, he must resign as Regent forthwith. When he refused to negotiate, she concentrated her efforts on gathering an army and, with the help of the Hamiltons and other supporters, raised 6,000 men. As her forces grew, so did the Queen’s optimism and Moray’s alarm; before his troops were at full strength, he decided to march on the royalists. Meanwhile, Argyll had joined Mary and been made Lieutenant of her army; Huntly soon followed. When Queen Elizabeth heard the news of Mary’s escape, she sent a message of congratulation, offering help and support; but Mary was never to receive it.

On 8 May, Mary’s chief supporters—who now numbered nine earls, nine bishops, 18 barons, 14 commendators (receivers of ecclesiastical revenues) and 90 lairds—signed the “Hamilton Bond,” in which they undertook to help her regain her throne. The Queen felt that the best course was to seek an armed confrontation rather than lay the issue of her sovereignty before Parliament, and decided to lead her army west to relieve Dumbarton, which was being held by her supporters against the Lords.

But the Queen’s hopes were suddenly extinguished when, on 13 May, Moray’s army of 4,000 men led by the invincible Kirkcaldy of Grange inflicted a crushing defeat on her less ably commanded force at the Battle of Langside, just outside Glasgow. It did not help matters that, at a crucial moment, Argyll had withdrawn his troops, claiming he had suffered an epileptic fit, which few believed. His retreat demoralised the royalist soldiers, who soon began fighting amongst themselves and deserting. Seton was captured,⁵ as was Bishop Leslie, and 100 of the Queen’s men were killed. Some, like David Chalmers, escaped into exile.

Believing that her cause was lost, Mary fled from the field with Herries, Fleming, Livingston and a dozen other supporters, and rode south-west to Dumfries and Galloway. During her flight, she shaved her head, so as not to be recognised, and was forced to sleep on the ground and subsist on a diet of sour milk and oatmeal.⁶Her friends tried to persuade her to make for France, where she had lands and an income, but Mary made the fateful decision to flee to England because she was convinced, in the light of Elizabeth’s recent championship of her cause, that her cousin would do everything in her power to help her regain her throne. By the end of August, she told her supporters, she would be back in Scotland at the head of an English army.

Mary spent her last night in Scotland at the twelfth-century Dundrennan Abbey, a little way south-east of Kirkcudbright. The next day, 16 May, she set sail from Abbeyburnfoot (near Port Mary) with her companions, and crossed the Solway Firth to England. She would never see her kingdom again.

Mary’s boat put in at Workington on the shores of Cumberland. The next day, she wrote to Queen Elizabeth, outlining her troubles and asking for help. In this letter, she accused the Confederate Lords of devising, “subscribing to and aiding” Darnley’s murder, for the purpose of charging it falsely upon me, as I hope fully to make you understand. I, feeling myself innocent, and desirous to avoid the shedding of blood, placed myself in their hands. They have robbed me of every thing I had in the world, not permitting me either to write or speak, in order that I might not contradict their false inventions.⁷

Arriving in a strange land as a distressed sovereign who had come to place herself under the protection of a neighbouring monarch, Mary had little understanding or appreciation of the political problems that her presence in England would cause her cousin Elizabeth. In her simplistic view, she believed that her “dear sister” would unhesitatingly grant her military and financial aid, and speed her back on her victorious way to Scotland.

But the situation was not as straightforward as Mary thought. As a Catholic and a dynastic rival for Elizabeth’s throne, who had never ratified the Treaty of Edinburgh withdrawing her claim, she represented a dangerous threat to the English Queen’s security, for there were many in Christendom who regarded Mary as the rightful sovereign of England. As a Catholic in a Protestant country, Mary would be a focus for every Catholic agitator and dissident, especially in the north, where the old religion had its greatest following. With her legendary beauty and charm, she might inspire rebellion on both dynastic and religious grounds, and her presence in England would be a magnet to Philip of Spain and the rest of Elizabeth’s foreign enemies.

There was another disturbing aspect, in that Mary had been condemned by the Scottish Parliament for Darnley’s murder, and many believed her to have been an adulteress and fornicator also. Whatever Elizabeth’s personal feelings on the matter, it would be inappropriate and unwise for her, Darnley’s cousin, and a virgin queen with a reputation to protect, to receive someone as notorious as Mary.

Yet Mary was a crowned queen, whose abdication Elizabeth had refused to recognise, and by the laws of blood, hospitality and rank, was entitled to be treated as such. She had also been dealt with appallingly by her own subjects. On the other hand, she was too dangerous a person to be permitted to move about freely in England, nor could she be allowed to go to France, in case the French should send an army to Scotland to restore her, which was the last thing Elizabeth wanted. It was small wonder that, when Elizabeth learned of Mary’s arrival, she was plunged into an agony of perplexity over what to do with her. Mercifully, she was unaware that the political crisis that the Scottish Queen’s coming had precipitated would not be resolved for nearly nineteen years.

Mary had expected to be escorted to London for talks with Elizabeth, but on 18 May, as soon as the local authorities received news of her arrival, she was taken instead to Carlisle Castle, where she was courteously received into what she would soon realise was protective custody. She was deferred to with all the respect and dignity due to a queen, but kept vigilantly under guard, pending instructions from Westminster.

The news spread fast. Two days later, Drury informed Moray of Mary’s flight to England,⁸by which time Lennox, who had fought for the Lords at Langside, had already heard of it. When an express messenger reached London on 20 May, Queen Elizabeth summoned an emergency meeting of the Privy Council, at which, with a view to getting rid of Mary as quickly as possible, she declared her wish to receive her honourably and discuss her restoration. This was immediately opposed by Cecil, who had no wish to see the Protestant government in Scotland overthrown. Reminding Elizabeth that Mary had been plotting against her for years, he was all for sending her back to face her fate, but Elizabeth refused to contemplate this on the grounds that she would be sending Mary to her death. On the other hand, she really did not want to embroil herself in a war with Scotland. In the end, it was decided that the Queen of Scots should be kept in honourable custody as her guest until the “vehement presumption” of her complicity in Darnley’s murder was resolved. Elizabeth would be the unwilling arbiter between Mary and her subjects; if innocent, Mary should be restored, if not, some accommodation might be reached whereby she could still remain Queen but Moray would rule. “Our good Queen has the wolf by the ears,” observed Matthew Parker, the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury.

Elizabeth sent orders to Sir Francis Knollys and Lord Scrope to go to Carlisle to formally welcome Mary, take charge of her, and explain that it would be impossible for her to be received by their mistress until “the great slander of murder” had been “purged.”⁹In London, the French ambassador was expressing the opinion that Elizabeth would never let Mary come near her.¹⁰

In order to show herself impartial, Elizabeth requested Moray to stop harassing Mary’s supporters. Cecil, who had his own agenda, ordered Drury to keep in close touch with Moray, and when Drury received these instructions on 25 May, he at once informed Moray of them.¹¹They may have included an adjuration to the Regent to present as convincing a case as possible against Mary.

Cecil was greatly in favour of an investigation into Mary’s guilt, but English courts had no jurisdiction over foreign princes, and as this particular crime had been committed in Scotland, it was clear from the first that the Queen of Scots could not be put on trial; the only course open to the English was to hold an inquiry into her conduct. If Mary’s guilt could somehow be established, and her reputation publicly destroyed, Elizabeth would be justified in keeping her in custody, and her supporters would hopefully abandon her; thus the threat she posed would be neutralised. The first priority, therefore, was to convince Mary that an inquiry was in her best interests.

As soon as Moray received Drury’s message, which was around 26/27 May, he began to prepare his case. He was, of course, concerned to justify the continued existence of his government, and his own political survival, by proving Mary’s guilt. If she were found innocent, his position in Scotland, and that of his fellow Lords, would become untenable. It was therefore imperative that he use all the resources at his disposal to establish her guilt. Once again, the Scottish propaganda machine swung into action, this time in a deliberate campaign to blacken Mary’s name.

Moray had already sent John Wood to London on 21 May, “to damage the cause of Mary with Queen Elizabeth and the English nobility.”¹²Wood arrived in London before 27 May, and Nau says that, after Elizabeth had heard what he had to say, her kindness towards Mary diminished somewhat. Moray also dispatched at this time a mercenary soldier, Captain John Clerk, to Denmark to take Bothwell dead or alive.

On 21 or 22 May, Cecil had asked Lennox, who was visiting his wife at Chiswick, to demand justice against Mary for Darnley’s murder. Lennox needed no further prompting, and immediately set to work on a “Supplication,” which would later form the basis of the three versions of hisNarrative;¹³he used as his chief sources Thomas Crawford and Thomas Nelson, with whom he had no doubt discussed Darnley’s murder on several occasions. The resulting text, which was completed between 26 and 28 May, was a masterpiece of character assassination, in which authentic details blended with falsehoods and distortions. For example, Nelson had testified that Mary initially meant to take Darnley to Craigmillar in January 1567, but Lennox does not mention Craigmillar; instead, he states that Darnley was taken to a place “already prepared with undermines and trains of powder,” which cannot be true. In some respects, the “Supplication” is contradicted by the evidence in the depositions, which had been kept secret. In the later versions of theNarrative, some of these discrepancies have been amended. Lennox is also at variance in many respects with the propaganda of Buchanan. One example is his claim that Mary’s adultery with Bothwell began before the birth of the Prince; Buchanan states it began about three months afterwards.

Curiously, Lennox refers to only one of the Casket Letters; he says it was “written to Bothwell from Glasgow” before Mary left with Darnley for Edinburgh, and sent to let him understand that, although the flattering and sweet words of the King her husband had almost overcome her, yet she, remembering the great affection which she bare unto [Bothwell], there should be no such sweet baits dissuade her or cool her said affection from him, but would continue therein, yea, though she should thereby abandon her God, put in adventure the loss of her dowry in France, hazard such titles as she had to the crown of England and also the crown of her realm. Wishing him then presently in her arms, [she] therefore bade him go forward with all things according to their enterprise, and that the place and everything might be finished as they had devised, against her coming to Edinburgh And for the time of execution thereof, she thought it best to be the night of Bastien’s marriage. She also wrote in her letter that Bothwell should in no wise fail in the meantime to dispatch his wife, and to give her the drink as they had devised before.¹⁴

In most respects, this was the letter that Moray had described to de Silva. Lennox had either been shown it, or told about it, while he was in Scotland, or he had got his information from the ambassador in London. Lennox presented his “Bill of Supplication” to Elizabeth on 28 May.

The evidence suggests that, until Moray heard from Cecil on 26/27 May, he had intended to use just one of the Casket Letters against Mary, if need be. None of the other letters had ever been referred to individually, but they probably did exist at this time: although the word “letters” was used in both singular and plural contexts, there had been several references to “copies” and “writings.” Most of these other letters were probably genuine letters of Mary’s that were to be used out of context (possibly Casket Letters I, part of II, III, IV, V and VIII); they were perhaps considered insufficiently incriminating or convincing, and had only been kept for use as a last resort. It was probably at this time, therefore, that they were tampered with and that Casket Letters VI and VII, the marriage contracts and the sonnets, were forged. Moray was now prepared to use every weapon at his disposal against Mary.

On 22 June, Moray told Cecil that Wood had in his possession copies of the Casket Letters in Scots.¹⁵It has often been assumed that they were sent to him in a packet that Drury speedily forwarded from Moray on 30 May, but, on the assumption that the decision was taken on 27 May to produce more incriminating letters, that would have given the Lords three days at the most to doctor and forge their evidence. It is more likely that the copies were sent to Wood later in June, and that they included a revised version of the letter referred to by de Silva and Lennox, which was probably Casket Letter II as we know it. It would be safe to assume that all the letters received by Wood were in their final form.

On 27 May, Moray commissioned George Buchanan, that staunch Lennox man, to prepare an indictment against Mary. This indictment was written in Latin in the closing days of May, and later formed the basis for Buchanan’s Detectio and his History. Again, it was a tour de force of vitriolic anti-Marian propaganda, calculated to discredit Mary in English eyes as a monster of moral depravity and thus destroy Elizabeth’s sympathy for her. That it was based on second-hand knowledge, and was flawed, distorted and grossly inaccurate in parts, mattered little at a time when so much hung on it making a deadly impact on those who heard it. Masked by such powerful rhetoric, its inconsistencies went unnoticed.

Balfour may have assisted Buchanan in collating evidence. On 11 July, Drury reported that he was in confidential relations with Moray and employed on the most secret affairs of the state.¹⁶

Buchanan’s indictment was completed at the beginning of June. He himself refers to the haste with which it had been written, which is testimony to the sense of urgency felt by the Lords with regard to the amassing and production of evidence.

On 28 May, Knollys and Scrope saw Mary at Carlisle and told her that she could not be received at the English court until she had been acquitted of Darnley’s murder, and that that could only be achieved by submitting to Elizabeth’s judgement. Mary reacted by bursting “into a great passion of weeping,” and averred that no one but God “could take upon them to judge princes.” She asked that she might be permitted to state her case before Elizabeth, and insisted that the charges against her had been a mere pretext. She had, she added, counter-accusations to make. Firstly, Morton and Maitland had assented to the murder of Darnley, “as it could well be proved, although now they would seem to persecute the same.” Furthermore, the real cause of the Lords’ rebellion was the desire of the rebels “to keep by violence that which she had given so liberally, since by her revocation thereof within full age, they could not enjoy it by law.”¹⁷This was to be refuted by Wood in writing, at Cecil’s instigation, on 5 June.¹⁸

Knollys was impressed by Mary’s sincerity. In his report to Elizabeth, he wrote that everyone in the north of England was convinced of her innocence.¹⁹After Knollys and Scrope had left, Mary wrote to Elizabeth, complaining of her detention and offering to appear before her to purge herself of the calumnies of her enemies. Herries took the letter to London.

Knollys saw Mary again on 30 May, and discussed her forced abdication. She bitterly condemned Moray’s conduct, but Knollys pointed out that, if princes could lawfully be deposed for insanity, they could also be deposed for murder, “for the one is an evil humour proceeding of melancholy, and the other is an evil humour proceeding of choler; wherefore the question is whether Your Grace deserved to be put from the government or not, for if Your Grace should be guilty of any such odious crime, then how should they be blamed that have deposed you?” In tears, Mary protested again that she was innocent, only to be told once more that the only way to be purged of any crime was in submitting to Elizabeth’s judgement. His Queen, he added, would be “the gladdest in the world” to see Mary declared innocent.²⁰

On 8 June, Elizabeth sent an envoy, Throckmorton’s cousin Henry Middlemore, to Scotland, with instructions to stop at Carlisle on the way and deliver her reply to Mary’s letter of 28 May. In it, Elizabeth promised that she would restore Mary to her throne if she would permit her to hold an official inquiry to establish her innocence. However, she could not receive Mary until that had been done.

“Oh, Madam,” she protested, “there is no creature living who wishes to hear such a declaration more than I. But I cannot sacrifice my reputation on your account. To tell you the truth, I am already thought to be more willing to defend your cause than to open my eyes to see the things of which your subjects accuse you.” However, Mary could rest assured that she would be as careful of Mary’s life and honour as Mary herself was, and that, “once honourably acquitted of this crime, I swear to you before God that, among all worldy pleasures, [receiving you] will hold the first rank.”²¹

Elizabeth also sent a letter to Moray, accusing him of “very strange doings ” against a sovereign prince. Rather stretching the truth, she told him that Mary was “content to commit the ordering of her cause to us,” and insisted that he inform her of his defence “against such weighty crimes as the Queen has already [objected], or shall hereafter, object against you.”²²Her letter was entrusted to Middlemore.

On 11 June, John Wood visited Lennox at Chiswick. That day, he wrote a letter on Lennox’s behalf to Moray, asking rather belatedly for certain information about Darnley’s murder, and in particular about the activities of Archbishop Hamilton. Lennox, however, still held the Queen to be the chief culprit, for, referring to the Casket Letters, he observed that “there is sufficient evidence in her own handwriting to condemn her.” Lennox also sent to Crawford, Robert Cunningham and another of his henchmen, John Stewart, ordering them to use every means to obtain further evidence against Mary. This all suggests that he did not think his “Supplication” went far enough, and that he was preparing a stronger case to lay before the inquiry.

By the summer of 1568, there was growing support in Scotland for the Queen’s party. Huntly and the Hamiltons were still staunch in their loyalty, and her adherents numbered both Catholics and Protestants. A recent convert to her cause was Kirkcaldy of Grange, who had never been comfortable with the Lords’ treatment of Mary. As its Governor, he now held Edinburgh Castle for her. Maitland had also had a change of heart, and was now working in secret with Atholl for her restoration.

Bishop Leslie had now joined Mary at Carlisle, and early in June, she sent him to London, where he and Herries were to seek an audience with Queen Elizabeth and plead their mistress’s case.²³Knollys reported on 11 June that Mary showed a great desire to be revenged on her enemies. The next day, Wood reported to Maitland that Mary had accused him and Morton of Darnley’s murder, and warned them against attending the inquiry in England, in case Mary made her accusations public.²⁴Maitland took this warning very much to heart.

On 13 June, Middlemore arrived at Carlisle and delivered Elizabeth’s letter to Mary. After reading it, she burst out passionately that she was an absolute prince and only God could judge her, and that there were things that she would reveal only to Elizabeth, face to face. Why could Elizabeth not summon Maitland and Morton to London, and let them debate the matter with her in Elizabeth’s presence?²⁵

When Middlemore had gone, Mary wrote to Elizabeth, telling her to remove from her mind the notion that she had come into England for the preservation of her life. On the contrary, she had come to clear my honour and obtain assistance to chastise my false accusers; not to answer them as their equal, but to accuse them before you. Being innocent, as—God be thanked—I know I am, do you not wrong me by keeping me here, encouraging by that means my perfidious foes to continue their determined falsehoods? I neither can nor will answer their false accusations, although I will with pleasure justify myself to you voluntarily as friend to friend; but not in the form of a process with my subjects.²⁶

Herries and Leslie saw Elizabeth and her Council around 14 June. They protested that Mary was innocent, and solemnly affirmed that the Confederate Lords, “who, under the pretext of this crime, wished to deprive their sovereign of her life and dignity, were the very men by whose most wicked plots and devices this crime was perpetrated, a crime of which she was wholly ignorant. Already, it was well understood by the larger portion of her nobility,” and her supporters were so “strong in their conviction, they had risked their lives and all that they possessed in defending the innocence of their sovereign.” The Council promised that Herries and Leslie would have an answer to their complaints in three days.²⁷

On the 17th, Elizabeth saw Herries in private and told him that she was still waiting for a favourable answer from Mary to her letters, to which he replied that there would be no other reply than that which she had already received. Mary was “entirely guiltless, and will prove her innocence very clearly, not only to Your Majesty, but also to all the other sovereigns of Christendom.” Elizabeth undertook to summon Moray and try to ascertain what had induced him to treat Mary “contrary to all law and justice.” If, she said, after hearing his side of the matter, Mary’s accusations still seemed justified, “I will defend her cause just as I would defend my own.” Otherwise, she would do her best to bring about a reconciliation between Mary and her subjects. However, she would not act as a judge in the matter. Herries believed that she was playing for time, and that Mary “had little to hope for in that quarter.”²⁸

The Council met on 20 June and declared its support for Elizabeth’s refusal to receive Mary. The Queen, they declared, could not in honour aid or restore her cousin, or suffer her to depart from the realm “before her cause be honourably tried.” It was decided at this meeting that Mary should be moved from Carlisle in case she tried to escape.²⁹

Fleming had now joined Herries in London, and on 22 June, Elizabeth saw them both and “made her final reply,” declaring that she would defend Mary in every way, but in so doing she had to have “due regard to her own good name and dignity.” She could therefore do no less than inquire into the truth of the accusations, and intended to summon Moray and his friends into her presence, and to entrust the inquiry to her Councillors; and if there was no truth in the charges against Mary, she would defend her cause. Otherwise, she would try to place Mary “on a good footing with her subjects.”

But Herries was not deceived by her fair words. “For whatever the Queen of England might pretend, her real intentions towards her cousin were clearly proclaimed by her actions. She has been boasting in private of the great captive she has made without having incurred the expenses of a war.”³⁰Herries had also learned that James MacGill was on his way to London with “certain pretended Acts of Parliament,” which declared that Mary had voluntarily abdicated. Herries had secured Elizabeth’s agreement that MacGill should not be received at court, but she received him anyway.³¹

When Middlemore reached Scotland and delivered Elizabeth’s letter to Moray, he found the Scottish Lords anxious to stress Mary’s guilt. But Moray was perturbed by Elizabeth’s demand that he justify his actions to her, and on 22 June, he told Middlemore that he had specifically sent John Wood to London with matter he trusted would resolve the Queen’s doubts. Because the case was to be aired in public, he was “most loath” to make any accusations against Mary, “for all men may judge how dangerous and prejudicial that should be.” Therefore, “it were most reasonable we understood what we should look to follow thereupon, in case we prove all that we allege; otherwise, we shall be as uncertain after the cause concluded as we are at present. And therefore we pray Her Highness in this point to resolve us.”

He then turned to the matter of the Casket Letters. “It may be that such letters as we have of the Queen that sufficiently, in our opinion, proves her consenting to the murder of the King, shall be called in doubt by the judges.” Since Wood had copies of the letters in Scots, we would earnestly desire that the said copies may be considered by the judges that shall have the examination of this matter, that they may resolve us this far, in case the principal [originals] agree with the copy, that then we prove the cause indeed. For when we have manifested and shown all, and yet shall have no assurance that it we send shall satisfy for probation, for what purpose shall we either accuse, or take care how to prove, when we are not assured what to prove, or, when we have proved, what shall succeed?³²

What Moray was asking was, in effect, that the commissioners (who had not yet been appointed) would comment on the veracity of his evidence before it had been submitted to the inquiry, which was outrageous, considering that he was an interested party. He also wanted to know what would happen if the Lords proved their case, for, if he accused Mary of murder, he was burning his boats as far as reaching a compromise with her was concerned. He was also well aware that, whether Mary was guilty or not, Elizabeth, for political considerations, might attempt to restore her at any time, with fearful consequences for himself. Both his requests reveal his awareness of the enormity of the charges he was laying against his sovereign. If his evidence had been genuine, it is unlikely that he would have betrayed such anxiety. But, as has been demonstrated, it was not, it was essentially flawed and corrupt, and he knew that there was a risk of discovery. This is why he was asking for guarantees.

Moray received no direct answer from Elizabeth. But towards the end of June, Cecil told Wood, off the record, that no matter what was being said in public, the English government had absolutely no intention of restoring Mary to her throne, whatever the outcome of the inquiry. Clearly, this was not to be an impartial investigation, but a charade held for purely political reasons.

On 30 June, Elizabeth wrote to Mary, expressing the wish that, her innocence being such as she hoped, she would not refuse to answer questions put by any noble personage sent to her by herself; this would not be a judicial inquiry, but one carried out for Elizabeth’s own satisfaction. “I assure you I will do nothing to hurt you, but rather honour and aid you,” she added reassuringly.³³

But before this reached Mary, some letters from Wood to Moray fell accidentally into her hands. Reading that her letters were to be used against her in evidence induced symptoms of shock, for she had had bitter experience of how ruthless the Lords could be in their own interests; as she herself wrote to Elizabeth, “these letters, so falsely invented, have made me ill.”³⁴ Would she have admitted to them making her ill if she were guilty?

Between May and October, Mary bombarded Elizabeth with over twenty letters urging a meeting between them. “I am no enchantress,” she wrote, “but your sister and natural cousin.” It was all to no effect. Elizabeth observed that Mary’s obvious fear arose from “guiltiness,” but Cecil crossed this out, and wrote “doings.”³⁵

By the beginning of July, Elizabeth was growing weary of Mary’s importunings, and begged her to “have some consideration of me instead of always thinking of yourself.” Historians have also taken a generally dim view of Mary’s constant protestations of innocence and repeated demands for an interview, but, if innocent, as the evidence strongly suggests, she cannot be blamed for her insistence, since it must have appeared to her that no one was listening.

On 13 July, Moray, having received Cecil’s assurances, formally agreed to take part in an inquiry.³⁶However, he was not pleased to learn that he would in fact be a defendant, for the inquiry was to be based on Mary’s charges against her subjects. Even now, despite what Cecil had said, Moray feared that Elizabeth would insist on Mary’s restoration. He was also determined to prevent Bothwell from being extradited by the English and called to give evidence, and to this end sent an urgent message to Captain Clerk in Denmark to expedite matters.

Around 13–15 July, Mary was moved, under protest, to isolated Bolton Castle in Yorkshire, which had been chosen because it was as far from Scotland as from London. Here, with Sir Francis Knollys as her “host,” she kept great state as a queen, and was allowed to go hunting under escort; the fiction was maintained that she was Elizabeth’s honoured guest. But the restrictions on her liberty greatly distressed her, and Knollys had to cope with tears and reproaches. He also had to bear in mind Cecil’s reminder that, “besides the vehement presumption against her of the horrible murdering of her husband, other things were known; and these might become known to the whole world.”³⁷

Both Elizabeth and Cecil wanted Mary kept in captivity, but they needed a pretext for doing so, which it was hoped that the inquiry would provide. But first, Mary had to be persuaded to agree to the inquiry. During July, Elizabeth saw Lord Herries and informed him that Moray had agreed to take part in an inquiry into the conduct of the Confederate Lords, but that no formal judgement would be given. Then, laying her bait, she said that, if Mary would “remit her case to be heard by me, as her dear cousin and friend, I will send for her rebels and know why they deposed their Queen. If they can allege some reason for doing so, which I think they cannot, I will restore Queen Mary to her throne”—by force, if necessary—“on condition that she renounces her claim to England and abandons her league with France and the Mass in Scotland, receiving the [Book of] Common Prayer after the manner of England.” If the Lords’ evidence against Mary proved sufficient, then she would be restored with conditions, but whatever the findings of the inquiry, the Lords were not to be punished for their actions and were to “continue in their state and dignity.”³⁸

On 22 July, Elizabeth informed Moray that she had told Herries of his willingness to appear, and warned him that, during the inquiry, “nothing will be done or intended in any way” to Mary’s prejudice.³⁹Two days later, Herries arrived at Bolton with Elizabeth’s promise of restoration. Tempted as Mary was to agree to the inquiry, there were too many conditions attached, and she was particularly disturbed about the requirement to abandon the Mass. For four days, she agonised over what she should do. Then, on 28 July, she capitulated, and agreed to “submit her cause to Her Highness in thankful manner,” believing that Elizabeth’s offer was genuine. Thereafter, she was in a buoyant mood, confident of success, for Elizabeth had made it clear that she would be restored whatever the outcome of the inquiry. Immediately, Mary ordered her supporters in Scotland to lay down their arms, provided that Moray’s men had done the same.

Few people at Elizabeth’s court were deceived by the Queen’s fair words. That month, both the French and Spanish ambassadors reported that the English meant to keep Mary in prison.⁴⁰On the 29th, Lennox wrote to Wood to say he was glad to hear his opinion that Mary would agree to the inquiry, and asked to be informed of the time and place. His letter also revealed that he had been in regular contact with Moray.⁴¹

Mary was anxious to be seen to be keeping her part of the bargain. From 8 August onwards, Knollys was writing optimistically of her flirtation with the Protestant faith. She accepted the ministry of an Anglican chaplain, and willingly listened to his sermons, even one in which he denounced popery to her “attentive and contented ears.”⁴²But Moray had no intention of being so conciliatory. On 16 August, in what can only be seen as a provocative move, he proclaimed in Parliament the forfeiture of the Hamiltons, Herries, Fleming, Leslie and other royalist supporters.⁴³

During August, Elizabeth and her advisers made preparations for the inquiry—or conference, as it was to be called—that was to be held at York early in October. Commissioners were to be appointed by Mary, Moray and Elizabeth, and it would be the task of the English commissioners to listen to the evidence and report their findings to Elizabeth, who would then act upon them. Although the stated purpose of the conference was to compel the Lords to account for their conduct against their sovereign, the real issue to be debated was whether Mary was guilty of complicity in Darnley’s murder. No judgement would be given because Elizabeth had no authority to judge the Queen of Scots, neither did she wish to see her found guilty. Her aim was to keep her in captivity, not only as a political bargaining counter in England’s future negotiations with the Scots, but also to give Elizabeth a good excuse for interfering in, and manipulating, Scottish affairs to her own advantage. Moray, for his part, wanted Mary branded a murderess and adulteress before the world and kept in prison in England, so that he could continue to rule Scotland unhindered. Although Moray was anxious about the evidence he was to submit, the outcome of the conference would be decided on political considerations alone.

Lennox was beginning to be a nuisance. On 18 August, he reminded Cecil that he had sent Elizabeth the “Supplication” asking for justice, to which he had not had a response, and urged that, as he was “the party whom the matter toucheth nearest,” his appearance at the inquiry “may be thought necessary.”⁴⁴A week later, Elizabeth refused him leave to attend the conference at York.

Moray now began pressing Frederick II for Bothwell’s extradition to Scotland so that he could be tried for Darnley’s murder. He even asked Frederick to permit Captain Clerk to execute Bothwell and send his head to Edinburgh. Both demands were refused.

On 29 August, Elizabeth named her commissioners. Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk, premier peer of the realm and a Protestant widower of thirty, was to act as chairman. Assisting him would be Thomas Ratcliffe, 3rd Earl of Sussex, and Sir Ralph Sadler, a seasoned diplomat with wide experience of Scottish affairs. Aware of Moray’s reluctance, the Queen instructed her commissioners to do everything in their power to make him produce all his evidence against Mary. They were told that, if the case against the Queen of Scots was “plainly proved,” Elizabeth would deem Mary “unworthy of a kingdom”; but if it were not proved, then she would restore her. Of course, Mary had been told that she would be restored whatever the outcome, and Moray had been reassured that she would not be restored at all.

On 6 September, Moray was issued a safe-conduct by the English government.⁴⁵Shortly afterwards, Mary announced that she would not be appearing in person at York because she did not recognise the right of any tribunal to try her; however, she was willing for her commissioners to represent her there, and announced that she had chosen Leslie, Herries, Livingston, Boyd, Gavin Hamilton, Commendator of Kilwinning, Sir John Gordon of Lochinvar and Sir James Cockburn, the Laird of Skirling, to act for her. Some of these men were Protestants yet had remained loyal to the Queen, but none of them had the subtlety and cunning of Moray and his associates. Mary ordered them to treat Moray and her other “disobedient subjects” only as defendants who were appearing to answer the charges she had made against them, and wrote to Elizabeth: “I will never plead my cause against theirs unless they stand before you in manacles.”

In her formal instructions to her commissioners, written on 9 September, Mary denied writing the Casket Letters:

In case they allege to have any writings of mine which may infer presumptions against me, ye shall desire that the principals be produced, and that I myself may have inspection thereof, and make answer thereto; for ye shall affirm in my name I never wrote anything concerning that matter to any creature, and if any such writings be, they are false and feigned, forged and invent[ed] by themselves, only to my dishonour and slander; and there are divers in Scotland, both men and women, that can counterfeit my handwriting, and write the like manner of writing which I use as well as myself, and principally such as are in company with themselves; and I doubt not, if I had remained in my own realm, I should before now have discovered the inventors and writers of such writings, to the declaration of my innocence and the confusion of their falsehood.

Mary may have been implying that the letters had been forged by Maitland, who later admitted to Norfolk that he could imitate her writing, or by Archibald Douglas, who later gained a reputation as a notorious forger. She was never to deviate from her insistence that the Casket Letters were forgeries.

Even though Mary had announced that she would not appear at the York conference, she was dismayed to learn that she was not to be permitted to attend anyway. Elizabeth was determined not to give her the opportunity publicly to declare her innocence and deny writing the Casket Letters, because her beauty and charm might sway the commissioners and prejudice the desired outcome of the inquiry. Elizabeth was also aware of Moray’s reluctance to produce the Casket Letters, and must have guessed that, if Mary was allowed to scrutinise them, she might find in them enough flaws to seriously undermine his case. Mary was not only the complainant in this case, she was also, effectively, the accused, and to deny her the right to appear in person to defend herself was a flagrant breach of justice.

In Scotland, the Queen’s nobles assembled at Dumbarton on 12 September and, aware that the Casket Letters were going to be Moray’s most important pieces of evidence, declared that the letters produced by the Lords in Parliament the previous December were forgeries. “And if it be alleged that Her Majesty’s writing should prove Her Grace culpable, it may be answered that there is no place mention[ed] in it by the which Her Highness may be convicted, albeit it were her own hand-writ, as it is not. And also, the same is devised by themselves [the Lords] in some principal and substantious clauses, which will be clearer near the light of day.” This supports the theory that the Casket Letters were in part genuine letters of Mary’s that had been tampered with and augmented. The nobles also declared that “there was nothing done in their [the Lords’] Parliament that could prejudice the Queen’s honour in any sort, Her Grace never being called nor accused. It is against all law and reason to condemn any living creature without first hearing them in their defence.”⁴⁶Whereupon these royalist Lords, those same Lords who had signed the Hamilton Bond in May, subscribed to a new bond to support the Queen against her enemies.

Moray and his friends were underterred. On 16 September, as the Regent was preparing to leave for England, Morton entrusted the Casket Letters to his safe keeping, and received in return a receipt for “a silver box overgilt with gold” containing “missive letters, contracts or obligations for marriage, sonnets or love ballads, and all other letters contained therein,” which were stated to have been kept by Morton “without any alteration, augmentation or diminution thereof in any part or portion.”⁴⁷If the “missive letters” were the eight that we know today, what then were all the “other letters”? As will be seen, there were probably more than eight letters in the casket.

Two days later, a commission was issued in the name of King James, authorising Moray, Morton, Lindsay, Adam Bothwell, Bishop of Orkney, and Robert Pitcairn, Commendator of Dunfermline, assisted by Maitland, James MacGill, the Protestant lawyer Henry Balnaves (who hated Mary), and Buchanan, as secretary, to meet Queen Elizabeth’s commissioners at York, and to declare the causes why the Lords had taken up arms against their sovereign lady.⁴⁸Relations between Moray and Maitland were now frosty, but Moray had decided to take the Secretary, that “necessary evil,” with him because he feared it would be unsafe to leave him in Scotland. As for Maitland, he was determined to do all in his power behind the scenes at York to protect Mary’s interests. In the furtherance of a future dynastic union with England, for which he had worked for years, he hoped to bring about a reconciliation between the Regent and Mary that would lead to the latter’s restoration. In this, he had an ulterior motive, for, fearful that his own role in Darnley’s murder would be exposed, he wanted to avoid a close examination of the evidence by the commission. But neither Mary nor Moray trusted him: both regarded him as treacherous. However, if Maitland could turn matters around in the Queen’s favour at York, she might forgive him and be more amenable to reaching some composition with Moray.

On 20 September, Elizabeth wrote a private letter to Moray, assuring him that, although it had been reported that she intended to restore Mary even if she were found guilty, this was not in fact the case,⁴⁹and this was reiterated by Cecil in a letter sent on the 25th. Meanwhile, Elizabeth had learned, through Knollys, that Mary had told her Catholic friends that her interest in Protestantism was merely opportunistic.⁵⁰Proof of this is to be found in a letter Mary wrote in September 1568 to the Queen of Spain, claiming that, with King Philip’s help, she would “make ours the reigning religion” in England. Already, she was scheming to seize Elizabeth’s crown. But since her marriage to Bothwell, Philip had ceased to support her. Late in September, fearful that her co-religionists were being alienated by her dabbling in Protestantism, Mary publicly reaffirmed her devotion to the old religion before a large gathering of Catholics at Bolton Castle. But on 29 September, her instructions to her commissioners contained an undertaking that she would consider embracing religious conformity with England after her restoration.⁵¹In her desperation to regain her throne, Mary was trying to be all things to all people, and learning to be duplicitous in the process.

Moray and his colleagues left Edinburgh for York on 25 September. They took with them the English translation of Buchanan’s indictment, called the Book of Articles, which significantly contained more detailed references to the Casket Letters than the original. Mary’s commissioners arrived at York on 2 October, Moray’s and Elizabeth’s on the 3rd. Sir Ralph Sadler was probably not alone in feeling unhappy and perplexed about the outcome of the conference that was to open on the morrow. As for Norfolk, he had little faith in Mary’s commissioners, and believed that she had better friends on Moray’s side than on her own.⁵²