Page:Imperialdictiona03eadi Brandeis Vol3a.pdf/372

MAR and encouraged their enterprise, now shamelessly disavowed them, and even rebuked them publicly for their rebellious conduct. In this desperate condition Moray earnestly entreated Leicester and Cecil to save him from being "wrecked for ever," and even stooped to solicit the intercession of Riccio with the queen. The wisest of Mary's counsellors urged the inexpediency of driving the insurgents to despair, and warned the queen and Riccio of the danger of proceeding to extremities against men who had still many influential friends in the kingdom. The queen had resolved to follow this moderate and judicious advice, but was unfortunately induced to change her resolution by two French envoys who had at this juncture arrived at the Scottish court, bringing with them a copy of the "band" or league, which had been drawn up at Bayonne and signed by the emperor and the kings of France and Spain, for the extirpation of the protestant religion. Yielding to the representations of the French ambassadors, enforced by her consort and the Romanist party in the kingdom, Mary signed the league, and resolved to take steps at the next meeting of parliament for the forfeiture of Moray and his associates. Meanwhile Mary's weak, headstrong, and vicious husband had taken deep offence at her refusal to bestow on him the crown matrimonial (see ), and contracted a bitter hatred to David Riccio, her secretary, whom he blamed for the queen's reluctance to comply with his demands. The result of the estrangement and jealousy of the weak and worthless youth, was a conspiracy for the assassination of Riccio, which was subsequently joined by Morton and other leaders of the protestant party, for the purpose of procuring the restoration of the banished lords, and averting the dangers which threatened the cause of the Reformation. This villanous plot, which was carried into effect with circumstances of peculiar atrocity, recoiled on the heads of its authors and abetters, who were compelled to flee the country, and were outlawed and forfeited.—(See .) In the critical situation in which she was placed Mary acted with great prudence. She pardoned Moray and his associates on condition that they should detach themselves from the murderers of Riccio. She restored her brother to some share of the power which he had formerly possessed, and laboured to reconcile him to Huntly and other powerful nobles with whom he had been at feud. In the midst of these distractions and perils Mary was safely delivered of a son (19th June, 1566), who was named James Charles, in whom the two crowns were ultimately united. On her recovery she set herself to compose the differences still existing among the rival factions, and to form a strong government by admitting the leading nobles of all parties to a share in the management of public affairs. But the foolish, wayward, and headstrong conduct of Darnley thwarted all her efforts to restore the tranquillity of the kingdom, rendered him so obnoxious to the nobility, and brought such aggravated sufferings on his consort, that at length Lethington, Moray, and other leading nobles, proposed to free her from her misery by a divorce; a project which, however, was soon exchanged for another and much more nefarious expedient. While the alienation between Mary and her husband daily increased, the profligate and unscrupulous earl of Bothwell rose rapidly in her confidence and esteem. Soon all her measures were directed by his advice and authority, and all favours and preferments passed through his hands. At what precise period he first conceived the audacious project to gain the affection and the hand of the queen, it is impossible to say; but it led him in no long time to enter into a conspiracy with Lethington, Huntly, Argyll, and others, for the murder of the king.—(See .) Their atrocious plot was carried into effect during the night of the 9th of February, 1567. While Mary was attending a masque at Holyrood the wretched Darnley was strangled, and the house in which he was residing was blown up with gunpowder. Whether or not this murder was perpetrated with the queen's complicity has been keenly disputed; there can unhappily be no doubt that if not an accomplice in the deed, she at least regarded it with no feelings of disapprobation after it was accomplished. Although the public voice loudly accused Bothwell of the murder of Darnley, the queen loaded him with new favours, and heaped upon him honours and important offices. In spite of the public clamour against the assassins, the pathetic entreaties for justice on the part of the father of the murdered king, the vehement reproaches of Elizabeth, and the energetic remonstrances of the archbishop of Glasgow, Mary could not be induced to take a single step to bring the murderers of her husband to justice. It was not till after the lapse of more than a month that she was at length driven to attempt to screen herself from obloquy, and to protect her favourite, by a mock trial, which as a matter of course terminated in a premeditated and scandalous acquittal. When the parliament assembled two days after the trial, Mary selected Bothwell to bear the crown and sceptre before her at its opening. He was scarcely ever absent from her side, and his complete ascendancy over her was openly and ostentatiously displayed. It soon became evident that, hurried along by her passion, she was bent on bestowing her hand upon the murderer of her husband. Some of her most trusty counsellors at great personal risk remonstrated, but without effect, against this dishonourable and ruinous step, which had actually been decided upon by a contract signed by Mary seven days before Bothwell's acquittal. By a characteristic combination of force and fraud, he procured the signatures of the leading nobles and ecclesiastics to a paper recommending him as a suitable husband to the queen—the most disgraceful and cowardly of all the base transactions of the Scottish nobility of that age. The seizure of the queen's person by Bothwell, with her own consent, took place a few days after, and was followed by his divorce from his countess, which was hurried through the courts with the most indecent haste. The tragedy now advanced rapidly to its conclusion, and in spite of the undisguised disgust of the public, the remonstrances of the French ambassador, and the solemn and faithful warning of Craig, the colleague of John Knox, Bothwell was married to the queen at Holyrood, May 15th, 1567, little more than three months after the murder of her husband. Several weeks before that event, a party had been secretly organized among the nobles for the protection of the infant prince against the suspected designs of the unscrupulous favourite. In the course of a few weeks after the ill-omened marriage of their sovereign, they took up arms and declared their determination to separate the queen from her husband, and to seize and punish the latter as the murderer of the king. Mary and Bothwell at first retired to the strong castle of Dunbar; but in a few days they found themselves strong enough to confront the confederates (June 15th) at Carberry Hill, six miles from Edinburgh. But the royal army was dispirited and reluctant to fight in such a quarrel, and soon disbanded in great numbers. In the end the confederates promised to return to their allegiance, if Bothwell were dismissed, and if the queen would follow them to Edinburgh. To these terms Mary in this extremity gave her consent; Bothwell was permitted to ride off the field; and the queen surrendered to the insurgent barons on the conditions specified. Within an hour she found that she was in the hands other mortal enemies. They conducted her to Edinburgh, where they treated her with brutal indignity; next day she was conveyed a prisoner to Lochleven castle, where by violent threats she was induced to sign three documents, by which she resigned the crown in favour of her son, nominated the earl of Moray regent during the king's minority, and appointed a temporary regency to act until Moray returned from the continent. The coronation of James, and the arrival of Moray, and his assumption of the regency speedily followed.—(See .) But he had not been many months in possession of this office, when Mary escaped (May 2d, 1668) from Lochleven, and took refuge in the fortress of Hamilton. A strong body of the nobles immediately flocked to her standard, and she soon found herself at the head of six thousand men determined to restore her authority. She was anxious to wait for additional reinforcements, but was hurried into an engagement with the regent at Langside, near Glasgow, as she was on her march to Dumbarton. Her army was completely defeated, and she fled from the field to Dundrennan, a distance of sixty miles, before she drew bridle. Next day in opposition to the remonstrances of her friends, she resolved to throw herself on the protection of Elizabeth, and crossing the Solway, proceeded through Cockermouth to Carlisle.

The rash and unwise resolution of Mary to seek refuge in the dominions of her rival, was destined to exercise the most disastrous inflence on her future career. Elizabeth was at first somewhat at a loss what course to pursue. She might have reinstated Mary on the Scottish throne, or have granted her an asylum in England, or have permitted her freely to retire to France. But in her opinion all these three courses were fraught with danger to herself and to the security of her throne. She, therefore, in keeping with her usual selfish policy, but in violation of the principles both of justice and humanity, resolved to detain Mary a prisoner in England. It was necessary, however, to find a pretext for this unjust and ungenerous procedure; and