Mary, Queen of Scots (47 page)

Drury, whose source is unknown, reported that Mary led a gay and care-free life at Seton, but his information was probably inaccurate, for he also claimed that the Queen and Bothwell visited Dunbar on 17 February, which is untrue.
²⁸
However, Mary’s enemies were later to make up all kinds of scurrilous tales about her visit to Seton. Buchanan and Knox alleged that Bothwell was with her there and “never absent from her side,” and that the Queen spent her time “plainly abusing her body with Bothwell” or in going out “to the fields to behold games and pastimes,” shoot at the butts and play golf or pell-mell. Buchanan claimed, with vicious irony, that Bothwell was “given a chamber next to the kitchen, yet this was not entirely unsuitable for assuaging their sorrow, for it was directly beneath the Queen’s chamber, and if any sudden wave of grief overcame her, there was a stair which was wide enough for Bothwell to get up to console her.”
²⁹
Bothwell, of course, was in Edinburgh at the time.

Clernault arrived in London on 16 February, and there wrote his report of Darnley’s murder, which concluded, “It has not been discovered, still less is it known, who is the author of it.” A copy of the report was left with Cecil, whose clerk endorsed it.
³⁰

That night, the first of a number of accusatory and defamatory placards was pinned to the door of the Tolbooth in Edinburgh; its anonymous author claimed to have “made inquisition by them that were the doers thereof” and affirmed that “the committers” of Darnley’s murder were Bothwell, Balfour, David Chalmers and one Black John Spens, “who was the principal deviser of the murder, the Queen assenting thereto, through the persuasion of the Earl of Bothwell and the withchcraft” of Bothwell’s former mistress, Janet Beaton, the Lady of Buccleuch. “And if this be not true, [ask] Gilbert Balfour,” brother of James.
³¹
Drury reported the appearance of this placard to Cecil on 19 February, saying that it was written as if by the Queen and stated, “I and the Earl of Bothwell were doers of the [murder].”
³²

John Spens was the Queen’s Advocate;
³³
he was later arrested for Darnley’s murder, but his role in the conspiracy is unknown. In the “Notes concerning David Chambers” [
sic
] preserved amongst Cecil’s papers at Hatfield, and probably collated by one of his agents during Mary’s captivity in England, it is claimed that Chalmers “was a great dealer betwixt the Queen and Bothwell”—it will be remembered that Buchanan claimed they had used his lodging as a trysting place—which “gave cause to my Lord Lennox in his letters to the Queen to accuse David as culpable and participant in the murder of the King his son.” On 17 March, Lennox did name Chalmers as a party to Darnley’s murder, but there is no other evidence of his involvement.

On 17 February, de Silva informed Philip II of that same murder. He had waited three days since being told the news by Cecil in case word came that the murderers had been apprehended, “but no news has come as to who had been the author of the crime.” “The case is a very strange one,” he wrote, “and has greatly grieved the Catholics. I think that more must be known than Cecil tells me, because when I sent to ask him if he had any further particulars, he told me he had not but we should soon know more because the Earl of Moray was coming hither, and two gentlemen also whom the Queen of Scotland was sending respectively to France and England, who would no doubt bring further details.” That night, Cecil received his spy’s drawing of the murder scene at Kirk o’Field.

The two gentlemen whom Mary was sending respectively to London and Paris were Robert Melville and Sebastien Pagez. Pagez left Edinburgh, in the company of M. Dolu, Mary’s Treasurer for her French dowry, on 18 February,
³⁴
bearing letters from the Queen to Archbishop Beaton, Mondovi and Queen Elizabeth, although there is no trace of the latter letter or any reply.
³⁵

Mary was still at Seton when, on 18 February, a letter in Scots was sent in her name to Archbishop Beaton thanking him “heartily” for his letter of warning and touching on various other matters. It was either dictated by Mary or sent by Maitland or her Council. It explained that, when she wrote to the Archbishop immediately after Darnley’s death, she had been so grievous and tormented, we could not make you answer [to] the particular heads of your letter . . . Alas, your message came too late, and there was over-good cause to have given us such warning. Even the very morning before your servant’s arrival was the horrible and treasonable act against the King’s person, that may well appear to have been conspired against ourselves, the circumstances of the matter being considered; whereupon, at this present, we will be no more tedious, abiding until God manifest the authors to the world. For knowledge thereof, neither we nor our Council shall spare the travail that possibly may be made, wherethrough truth may come to light, and therein is our chief care and study at this present.
³⁶

On that night, or the next, a second placard appeared in Edinburgh, denouncing three of Mary’s foreign servants—Sebastien Pagez, Joseph Rizzio and Francisco de Busso—as Darnley’s murderers. Clearly, Mary’s presence was needed in the capital, and on the 19th she returned from Seton to Holyrood.
³⁷

That day, Queen Elizabeth sent Lady William Howard and Mildred Cooke, Lady Cecil to the Tower of London to gently break the news of Darnley’s death to his mother,
³⁸
who was still a prisoner. They also, in good faith, told her that Lennox had been murdered with him. Lady Lennox was so overcome with grief that the ladies feared for her sanity, and, within the hour, after hearing their report, the Queen sent her own physician, Dr. Robert Huick, and the Dean of Westminster, to calm the stricken Countess. Later that day, Cecil learned that Lennox was not dead, and sent a messenger to the Tower to convey this news to Lady Lennox, but she remained inconsolable. Cecil told de Silva she “could not be kept by any means from such passion of mind as the horribleness of the fact did require.”
³⁹

Robert Melville arrived in London that night,
⁴⁰
and was immediately admitted to the Queen’s presence so that he could give her the official account of Darnley’s murder, which was that the conspirators had planned to kill Mary but that she had, by a lucky chance, avoided death. De Silva sought out Melville and “asked him certain questions to try and get at the bottom of the suspicions as to who had been the author of the crime, but could get nothing definite. Even if the Queen clears herself from it, the matter is still obscure.” Clearly there was already speculation in London that Mary had had a hand in Darnley’s death, for de Silva added, “The heretics here publish the Queen’s complicity as a fact, but they are helped in their belief by their suspicion and dislike for her. The Catholics are divided, the friends of the King holding with the Queen’s guilt, and her adherents to the contrary. However it may be, this event will give birth to others, and it is quite possible that this Queen [Elizabeth] may take the opportunity of disturbing the Scots, more for her own ends than for any love she bore the King.”
⁴¹
In his speculations, de Silva displayed an acute grasp of the situation.

Du Croc arrived in Paris on 19 February,
⁴²
and was the first to convey a report of the murders of Darnley and Lennox to Charles IX, Catherine de’ Medici and Mondovi. The next day, Cecil informed Sir Henry Norris, the English ambassador in Paris, that Lennox had not after all been killed.

Buchanan says that the regicides were already disturbed by the accusations that were beginning to be levelled at them, “but the numerous complaints of the Earl of Lennox disturbed them more. He dared not come to court on account of the overweening power and licence of Bothwell, but he bombarded the Queen with letters.” The second was sent on 20 February from Houston Castle, Renfrewshire, and read:

Notwithstanding the travail and labour which I perceive Your Majesty takes for the just trial of this last cruel act, and yet the offenders not being known, to my great grief I am therefore forced, by nature and duty, to be so bold as to give Your Majesty my poor and simple advice for bringing the matter to light: which is, to beseech Your Majesty most humbly, for God’s cause and the honour of Your Majesty and this your realm, that Your Highness would, with convenient diligence, assemble the whole nobility and estates of Your Majesty’s realm, and they, by your advice, to take such good order for the perfect trial of the matter, as I doubt not, with the grace of Almighty God, His Holy Spirit shall so work upon the hearts of Your Majesty and all your faithful subjects, as the bloody and cruel actors of this deed shall be manifestly known. And although I need not to put Your Majesty in remembrance thereof, the matter touching Your Majesty so near as it does, yet I shall humbly desire Your Highness to bear with me in troubling Your Highness therein, being the father to him that is gone.
⁴³

It might be inferred from this letter that Lennox felt that Mary was not doing enough to seek out and punish the murderers. The reference to her honour is quite pointed.

The distraught Lady Lennox was released from the Tower on compassionate grounds on 21 February, and placed in the house and care of Queen Elizabeth’s cousin, Sir Richard Sackville; her surviving son Charles, a boy of about twelve, was allowed to join her there. De Silva heard from Robert Melville that the Countess “used words against his Queen [Mary], whereat I am not surprised, as I told him, because grief like this distracts the most prudent people, much more one so sorely beset. She is not the only person that suspects the Queen to have had some hand in the business, and they think they see in it revenge for her Italian secretary; and the long estrangement which this caused between her and her husband gave a greater opportunity for evil persons to increase the trouble.”
⁴⁴
In the weeks to come, Lady Lennox would not cease to bombard Queen Elizabeth and de Silva with demands for vengeance on the killers of her adored son.

Cecil noted that the news of Darnley’s private burial caused great indignation in London: it was felt that, as King of Scots, he had deserved all the pageantry of a state funeral, and the fact that Mary had not accorded him one fuelled people’s suspicions.

Not everyone suspected Mary. On 21 February, after speaking with du Croc, Giovanni Correr, the Venetian ambassador in Paris, concluded with great perspicacity that, “until further advices are received, this assassination is considered to be the work of the heretics, who desire to do the same to the Queen, in order to bring up the Prince in their doctrines, and thus more firmly establish their own religion to the exclusion of ours.”
⁴⁵

By 21 February, Mary was back at Seton,
⁴⁶
and this time Bothwell was in attendance on her. Buchanan later asserted that “Seton had so many conveniences that they had to go back there, to the detriment of their reputations.” When Queen Elizabeth heard an unfounded rumour that Mary was exercising herself in shooting, golf and pell-mell with Bothwell, Huntly and Lord Seton, she refused to believe it, which was probably wise of her, for, according to Robert Melville, who had had the news from his brother James, Mary had gone “to Seton to repose there and take some purgations,”
⁴⁷
which is evidence enough that she was unwell. Mental stress often had an adverse effect on her physical health.

From Seton, on the 21st, Mary wrote a warm letter in reply to Lennox: We have received your letter giving us thanks for the accepting of your goodwill and counsel in so good part, in that we did only that which was right. And in showing you all the pleasure and goodwill that we can, we do but our duty and that which natural affection may compel us unto. Always of that ye may assure yourself.

And for the assembly of the estates, it is indeed convenient that such should be, and even shortly before the receipt of your letter, we had caused proclaim a Parliament, at the which we doubt not but you all for the most part shall be present, where first of all this matter, being most dear to us, shall be handled, and nothing left undone which may further the clear trial of the same. And we, for our own part, as we ought, and all noble men likewise, we doubt not, shall most willingly direct all our wits and judgements to this end.
⁴⁸

On 22 February, de Silva had an audience with Queen Elizabeth, “principally to speak about Scottish affairs and find out her opinion with regard to them. She spoke of the matter with much apparent sorrow, and said she thought it very extraordinary, but cannot believe the Queen of Scotland can be to blame for so dreadful a thing, notwithstanding the murmurs of the people. I told her I thought the rumours were set afoot by people who desire to injure her and make her odious in this country in respect to this succession, but I agreed with her that the thing was incredible. She tells me she had already taken precautions, by certain signs and words she had used, to exculpate the Queen of Scots.”
⁴⁹

Two days later, Moretta arrived in London and de Silva took the opportunity of sounding him out about Darnley’s death. “His account of the matter is almost the same as that published, although he makes certain additions, which point to suspicion that the Queen knew of, or consented to, the plot. When I asked him what he thought, or had been able to gather as to the Queen’s share in it, he did not condemn her in words, but did not exonerate her at all. He thinks, however, that all will soon be known, and even gives signs that he knows more than he likes to say.”
⁵⁰
Had Moretta been hoodwinked by Balfour into believing that Mary knew about the conspiracy? If so, such sensational allegations would certainly have deflected public attention from the real murderers.

It is unlikely that Moretta had a chance to speak with Elizabeth, but she had read Drury’s reports, and public opinion in England was becoming so vociferous against Mary that, on 24 February, the English Queen felt she had to offer urgent advice to her sister monarch; she wrote her an unusually frank letter, couched in far more forthright terms than she normally used. Even her customary greeting, “Ma chère soeur,” was omitted.