Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/158

 Soon the queen's name became associated with that of Bothwell as responsible for the murder. As she passed out of the market of Edinburgh the voices of the market women could be heard, saying, ‘God preserve you if you are saikless of the king's death.’ Notwithstanding the widespread suspicion, it was not till the Earl of Lennox, father of Darnley, pointedly called the attention of the queen to the fact that Bothwell and others were persistently proclaimed as the murderers, and that he for his part greatly suspected these persons, that the queen, with the consent of the council, promised him a judicial examination. At a meeting of the privy council held on 28 March 1567 instructions were given for a trial to take place on 12 April, but the government carefully avoided taking the initiative. The burden of the prosecution was laid on the Earl of Lennox and other accusers of Bothwell, who were required to ‘compeir and thair persew the said Erll and his complices’ (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 505). Lennox, knowing that Edinburgh was crowded with the followers of Bothwell, resolved for his own protection to bring three thousand men with him; but on approaching Linlithgow a message reached him, forbidding him to enter the city with more than six followers, and he therefore declined to attend. On the day of the trial a message arrived from Elizabeth, asking for its postponement, but when the import of the message was known Drury found it impossible to get it delivered to the queen. Robert Cunningham, on behalf of Lennox, also made an application for postponement, but it was resolved to proceed. Before such a jury as that selected it was scarcely possible that Bothwell on any evidence could have been found guilty; but no jury, except one strongly biassed against him, would have gone out of its way to convict in the absence of a prosecutor. Practically no trial took place at all. A technical verdict of ‘not guilty’ arrived at in such circumstances was valueless. On the conclusion of the trial Bothwell, in accordance with ancient custom, offered by public cartel to fight any one who should challenge his innocence. All that could be done to ratify the sentence of the jury was also immediately done by parliament, for on 14 April he obtained from parliament a confirmation of his rights to various lordships and lands previously conferred on him.

Before Bothwell's trial a rumour was current that, although his wife, Lady Jean Gordon, was still alive, he intended to marry the queen, and that she had promised to become his wife ‘long before the murder was done’ (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 1091). As early as 30 March Drury reports to Cecil that the ‘Earl of Huntly has now condescended to the divorce of his sister from Bothwell’ (ib. 1054). One of the documents, said to have been found in the silver casket, was a promise of marriage by the queen to Bothwell, in French, without date, and another was a marriage contract, dated Seton, 5 April 1567, said to be in the handwriting of Huntly, and professedly signed by the queen and Bothwell. Sir James Melville gives a graphic account of the danger to which Bothwell's wrath exposed Lord Herries and himself when they informed the queen of the rumours regarding her intended marriage to Bothwell (Memoirs, pp. 175–7). Neither Bothwell nor the queen wished their intentions to be made known prematurely, but after the trial no secret was made of their purpose of marriage. On the afternoon of 19 April, the day that the parliament rose, Bothwell entertained the leading protestant noblemen to supper in Ainslie's Tavern. In accepting his invitation they gave a pledge of friendliness, and when late in the evening he presented a document for their signature, the purport of which was to commit them to an assertion of his innocence, and to the support of his claims to the queen's hand, all subscribed with the exception of one or two who slipped out. It is stated that he showed them the queen's written authority for the proposal. Had the nobles supposed that Bothwell was acting without her authority, his proposal would probably have been rejected. Writing on the following day, Kirkcaldy of Grange, who was not at the supper, reported to Bedford that the ‘queen had said that she cares not to lose France, England, and her own country for him, and will go with him to the world's end in a white peticoat ere she leaves him’ (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 1119).

On 21 April 1567 the queen went to visit the infant prince at Stirling, and on the 24th, when returning to Edinburgh, she was met near the city by Bothwell, and with a show of force carried to Dunbar. Sir James Melville, who was present in her train at her capture, affirmed that ‘Captain Blaikater, that was my taker, allegit that it was the quenis awen consent’ (Memoirs, p. 177). If the evidence of the ‘Casket Letters’ be accepted she had made arrangements for the capture, and there is at least no evidence that Bothwell's procedure caused her any alarm, or met with any remonstrance. Both were aware, notwithstanding the signature of the bond by the nobles, that they alone really desired the marriage. Even the soldiers at Holyrood had become mutinous (ib. 1126).