Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 36.djvu/388

Mary Stuart dolph, 27 March, in App. to Robertson, History ; Ruthven, Narrative). During the night she was confined to her room, and strictly guarded. On the following evening Moray and the other lords arrived from Eng- land, and when Moray entered her presence she threw herself into his arms, exclaiming that if he had been with her he would not have seen her so uncourteously handled. But she was equally complaisant to Darnley, and on the following day she took him by one hand, and the earl by the other, and walked with them in her upper chamber for the space of one hour (Ruthven, Narrative). If, as she asserted, it was the intention of the lords to ward her in Stirling Castle till she had ' established their religion and given the king the crown matrimonial' (Labanoff, i. 347), they had no opportunity of intimating their final decision. Nor, although they accepted her offer to subscribe a band for their protection, was the band, which had been sent to her, ever signed. By early morning she and Darnley — after a midnight ride of twenty-five miles — had reached in safety the stronghold of Dunbar. More in despair than in hope the lords sent a messenger for the band, but no answer was vouchsafed to him. On the 15th she requested Elizabeth to let her plainly understand whether she intended to help the conspirators or not (id. i. 336). Meanwhile, by the aid of Both well and Huntly, she was soon at the head of a powerful force, with which on the 18th she entered Edinburgh. Moray's former experience made him hesitate to risk a second rebellion, and no attempt was made to oppose her. Nor did she now take further action against him and the other rebel lords ; and Morton and others directly concerned in the murder had already fled to England before a notice was issued on the 19th summoning them to answer for their share in it (Randolph, 21 March, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 156(5-8, entry 205 ; Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 437).

Apparently Mary did not at first gauge the full extent of Darnley's treachery, supposing him to have been chiefly the unwilling tool of Morton and others. When she learned the true character of the bargain between Darnley and the lords, she treated him with open scorn (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entries 252, 297, 298, 305, 362, 414, 417, 624, 885 ; Sir James Melville, p. 153 ; Knox, ii. 527, 533-5). Already there was talk of a divorce (Randolph, 25 April, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-1568, entry 305), and although a nominal reconciliation took place previous to her accouchement on 19 June (Randolph, 1 June, ib. entry 461), it did not survive her recovery (Sir Jahe.s Melville, p. 153). From this time matters went from bad to worse. In September Darnley told De Croc that he had a mind to go beyond sea (Keith, ii. 449); on 24 Oct. Maitland wrote to Beaton that it was ' ane heartbreak for her [Mary] to think that he [Darnley] should be her husband ' (Laing, ii. 72), and on 2 Dec. De Croc wrote to Beaton that ' Darnley's. bad deportment is incurable, nor can there be any good expected from him' (Tytler, iii. 232). As Mary '8 estrangement from Darnley increased, her favour towards Bothwell became more marked, and she also showed more cordiality to the protestant lords. She had been fully reconciled to Moray and Argyll before her accouchement, Maitland was restored to favour in September, and in December an amnesty was granted to Morton and Lindsay. Shortly before this the conference was held at Graigmillar to devise a method by which she might be rid of Darnley without prejudice to the young prince. Darnley was in Stirling at the time of the young prince's baptism in December, but declined to attend the ceremony, and shortly afterwards left for Glasgow. After writing to Beaton a letter of strong complaint against her husband, 20 Jan. 1566-7 (Labanoff, i. 395-9), Mary, either the same day (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 105) or the next (Diary handed in to Cecil), set out to visit him at Glasgow, where he was now convalescent from a severe illness. She had brought a litter with her to convey him, as she said, to Craigmillar (Crawford, Declaration), and after spending some days with him, persuaded him to accompany her to Edinburgh, which they reached on the 31st. Some distance from the city Bothwell met them with a cavalcade, and conveyed them to a house in Kirk-o'-Field (rented for the occasion from Robert Balfour), where Mary had been in the habit of spending the night; she left it about eleven clock on the night of 9 Feb. in the company of Bothwell for Holy rood Palace. Early the next morning the house was blown up and Darnley murdered.

Her motives in consenting to the murder have been variously interpreted. Some have supposed that both the murder and the subsequent marriage are sufficiently explained by her need of Bothwell's help to retain her sovereignty. That she was bound to him — as to her former husbands — chiefly by political ties, and throughout was actuated by considerations which, however various, were all more or less prudential, has even been put forth as a vindication. This was practically her own official explanation (Instructions, Labaxoff, ii. 31-50). But the view