Mary, Queen of Scots (72 page)

Mary, meanwhile, had been telling Knollys that she “would not greatly mislike” a marriage with a kinsman of Elizabeth. Knollys reported this to Cecil on 20 October, so Mary must have heard from her commissioners of the rumours about Norfolk, who was Elizabeth’s kinsman on her mother’s side. Knollys added that, in his opinion, the Queen could not detain Mary with honour “unless she be utterly disgraced to the world, and the contrary party maintained.” Knollys was now spending many pleasant hours teaching Mary English, and despite his puritanism, was obviously becoming ensnared by her charms.

On 20 and 21 October, the commissioners discussed whether or not Moray should have the Regency, Herries and his friends arguing that the office should have gone to Chatelherault (who was then in London), as heir presumptive after James and the nearest to Mary in blood. Moray retorted that it was for Parliament to choose a governor.
⁸
Fearful of the political consequences of his prolonged absence from Scotland, he also urged that the proceedings of the commission be expeditiously concluded.

Mary had now abandoned the idea of a reunion with Bothwell, and on 21 October, authorised her commissioners to consent to the dissolution of their marriage.
⁹
At the same time, messengers were sent to Denmark to obtain Bothwell’s agreement to this. Mary had quickly decided that marrying Norfolk would be a sensible solution to her problems, and had already begun to correspond with him. Despite the danger, he was willing to be persuaded, and before long they were addressing each other in very affectionate terms.

After the representatives had left for London, Sussex wrote to Cecil with an incisive summation of the unavoidable outcome of the inquiry:

This matter must at length take end, either by finding the Scotch Queen guilty of the crimes that are objected against her, or by some manner of composition with a show of saving her honour. The first, I think, will hardly be attempted for two causes: the one, for that, if her adverse party accuse her of the murder by producing her letters, she will deny them, and accuse most of them of manifest consent to the murder, hardly to be denied, so as, upon trial on both sides, her proofs will judicially fall best out, as it is thought. I think the best in all respects for the Queen’s Majesty [Elizabeth], if Moray will produce such matter as the Queen’s Majesty may find judicially the Scotch Queen guilty of the murder of her husband, and therewith detain her in England at the charges of Scotland.

Therefore Mary must either be found guilty, “or the matter must be huddled up with a show of saving her honour.”

Sussex went on to say that, if Mary would confirm Moray’s Regency, the Regent would forbear to accuse her and repeal the Act of Parliament declaring her guilty of Darnley’s murder. He added that the Hamiltons wanted her restored because they hated Moray.

Thus do you see how these two factions, for their private causes, toss between them the crown and public affairs of Scotland, and care neither for the mother nor child, but to serve their own turns.

In short, Sussex was disgusted by “the inconstancy and subtleness of the people with whom we deal.”
¹⁰

Sussex was in effect saying that, even though he (and no doubt most other people) knew that the Scottish Lords were guilty of Darnley’s murder, and that Mary’s testimony would probably demonstrate this, it would be better for Elizabeth if Moray were to produce his letters and give her an excuse to keep Mary in custody. It was really immaterial whether or not Mary was innocent: English interests must be protected. It was therefore imperative that Mary should not be given a chance to appear before the commission to state her case. Clearly, Sussex had little faith in the authenticity of the Casket Letters. Yet, if his summation was correct, it mattered little whether they were genuine or not.

At the same time, Mary was writing to Elizabeth to say that she hoped presently to see a good end to the inquiry, “whereof we may be perpetually indebted to you.”
¹¹
A day later, she wrote to inform her supporter, the Earl of Cassilis, in Scotland, of “the good proceedings” at York, where nothing had as yet been proved against her. But, unknown to Mary, Elizabeth’s attitude towards her was toughening. On 24 October, Cecil reported that she would not allow the Queen of Scots to be advanced to greater credit than she deserved. It may well be that Elizabeth had heard the rumours about the Norfolk marriage, which she would certainly have seen as a threat to herself; moreover, Norfolk was supposed to be impartial, and should not be inviting accusations of treason by courting the Scottish Queen. As for Mary, this was proof that she would not scruple to plot against Elizabeth. Norfolk himself told Moray he had heard that Elizabeth regarded the continued existence of Bothwell as a useful safeguard against Mary remarrying. Norfolk’s duplicity was probably the deciding factor in Elizabeth’s revoking of the conference to Westminster.

A further sign of her displeasure came on 30 October, when her Council agreed that Moray should be given the assurance he required, in order to make him press his charges against Mary. Confident of success, the Council decided that Mary should be imprisoned in Tutbury Castle once the conference was over. They also agreed that the English commission should be enlarged.

The representatives of both parties had now arrived at Hampton Court. It had been decided that Elizabeth would see Herries and Kilwinning first and make vague promises of desiring “some good end” to the inquiry. Then she would see Maitland and MacGill and tell them that, if they brought a charge of murder against Mary, and “if it may certainly appear to Her Majesty and her Council that the said Queen was guilty, then Her Majesty will never restore her to the crown of Scotland, but will make it manifest to the world what she thinketh of the cause.”
¹²

Leslie, no fool, had already guessed Elizabeth’s intentions, and informed Mary that her cousin’s “determined purpose” would be to wait until Moray and his colleagues had uttered “all they could to your dishonour, to the effect to cause you to come in disdain with the whole subjects of this realm, that ye may be the more unable to attempt anything to her disadvantage.” He warned her that, when the Lords had produced their evidence, Elizabeth would not pass any judgement, but would “transport you up in the country and retain you there till she thinks time to show you favour, which is not likely to be hastily, because of the fear she has herself of your being her un-friend.” Mary’s optimism now began to fade.

In Denmark, Captain John Clerk had been doing his best to gain access to Bothwell, but without success; he also had a commission to arrest Paris, and on 30 October, was lucky enough to track him down, along with one William Murray, Mary’s former Chamberlain. On that day, Clerk gave Bothwell’s keeper, Peter Oxe, a receipt for the two men, whom he planned to take back with him to Scotland to face trial and punishment.
¹³
On 20 November, Clerk wrote to inform Cecil of the arrest of Paris, so clearly his arrest was considered to be of the greatest importance. Here was a key witness to Darnley’s murder, who could give evidence before the commissioners. Yet Paris was never called upon to do this. In fact, he was not brought home to Scotland until long after the inquiry had ended. The inference must be that Paris knew too much about the Lords’ involvement in Darnley’s murder.

Elizabeth had certainly heard the rumours about Norfolk’s plan to marry Mary
¹⁴
when, on 3 November, she informed him that, “to take away the delay of time,” the next session of the inquiry would be held at Westminster
¹⁵
with the Privy Council and the principal peers of the realm being required to attend. Mary was told that the adjournment had been made so that “her restitution may be devised with surety to the Prince her son and the nobility that have adhered to him.” For all that, it would be to Mary’s disadvantage to have the inquiry moved 250 miles away from Bolton.

When Norfolk arrived at court soon afterwards, Elizabeth played a game of cat and mouse, quizzing him about the rumour that he hoped to marry the Queen of Scots. Lying in his teeth, he denied it, saying “he never meant to marry such a person, where he could not be sure of his pillow”—a reference to Darnley being suffocated—and would rather go to the Tower.
¹⁶
But Elizabeth was not deceived. However, she bided her time, waiting to see what the Duke would do.

Moray arrived at Hampton Court around 13 November, and was received in private by Elizabeth, a privilege that had been denied to his accuser, Mary, as her commissioners were not slow to point out to her. With Moray lodged at Kingston-upon-Thames, Elizabeth was to remain at Hampton Court throughout the inquiry, monitoring the proceedings from a tactical distance. On 21 November, Cecil wrote in a private memorandum that “the best way for England, but not the easiest,” was for Mary to “remain deprived of her crown and the state continue as it is.”

On 22 November, Mary instructed her commissioners to complain to Elizabeth of the manifest unjustness of admitting Moray to her presence, and not herself. She told them that, if Elizabeth would not consent to receive her in person in the presence of the English nobility and the foreign ambassadors, and give her the chance to answer all that “may or can be alleged against us by the calumnies of our rebels,” they must “break the conference and proceed no further therein.”
¹⁷

The next day, Chatelherault descended on Hampton Court and protested that the Palace of Westminster was a judicial venue, “where causes civil and criminal used to be treated.” Elizabeth told him that she had no intention of acting as a judge, and that the Painted Chamber, in which the conference was to be held, was not a place where judgements were given.

The additional English commissioners, whose names were announced on 24 November, were Cecil, the Earls of Leicester, Warwick, Arundel, Pembroke, Essex and Bedford, William Parr, Marquess of Northampton, Sir Nicholas Bacon, Keeper of the Great Seal, Sir Walter Mildmay and the Lord High Admiral, Edward Fiennes, Lord Clinton. All were Protestants and hostile to Mary, but the Catholic Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland were also summoned to attend.

The enlarged commission reconvened at Westminster on 25 November. Before the commissioners were sworn and their complaints resubmitted, Leslie declared that his Queen would not be bound by any judgement as she was a sovereign princess. The English commissioners assured him that they did not intend to proceed judicially.

Nevertheless, their attitude towards Mary was noticeably harsher. On that day or the next, they saw Moray in private and told him that, after all the evidence had been presented, they would report to their mistress what they found to be true, and that she would then pronounce what appeared to her to be true. They also gave the Regent a formal undertaking that, if he produced his proofs, and if Mary was found guilty, Elizabeth would recognise James as King of Scotland, and himself as Regent, and would either hand Mary over to the Scots for trial, or keep her securely in England.

Armed with this, Moray at last ventured to make his sensational allegations in public. On 26 November, protesting that he was acting only under necessity and most unwillingly, he presented his “Eik,” or amplification, in which he declared, “Whereas in our former answer we kept back the chiefest cause and grounds whereupon our actions and whole proceedings were founded, seeing our adversaries will not content themselves, but by their obstinate and earnest pressing, we are compelled for justifying of our cause to manifest the naked truth.” It was a dramatic moment that must have held everyone in the Painted Chamber spellbound, waiting for what would come next.

Moray went on:

It is certain, as we boldly and constantly affirm that, as James, sometime Earl of Bothwell, was the chief executor of that horrible and unworthy murder perpetrated in the person of King Henry of good memory, so was she [Mary] of the foreknowledge, counsel, device, persuader and commander of the said murder to be done, maintainer and fortifier of the executors thereof, by impeding and stopping of the inquisition and punishment due for the same according to the laws of the realm, and consequently, by marriage with the said Bothwell, universally esteemed chief author of the murder. Wherethrough they began to use and exercise an uncouth and cruel tyranny in the whole state of the commonwealth, and (as well appeared by their proceedings), intended to cause the innocent Prince, now our Sovereign Lord, [to] shortly follow his father, and so to transfer the crown from the right line to a bloody murderer and godless tyrant. In which respect, the estates of the realm of Scotland, finding her unworthy to reign, discerned her demission of the crown.

This last contradicted what Moray had said at York: that Mary had abdicated voluntarily.

The Eik was presented on a Friday, just before the commissioners were due to leave for Hampton Court for the weekend, which would give them time to digest and ponder its shocking contents. Yet although they saw Elizabeth at Hampton Court, Friday’s dramatic event was not discussed.

The commissioners met again at Westminster on Monday, 29 November, when Moray again recited his accusations, and his Eik was delivered in writing to Mary’s commissioners, who immediately withdrew to discuss it. When they returned, they said they thought it strange that Moray and his colleagues should make such accusations in writing against their Queen, who had always been so generous to them, and asked for time in which to consider their answer. At this point, Lennox presented himself before the commission, in defiance of Elizabeth’s orders, and submitted “in writing, briefly but rudely, some part of such matter [against Mary] as he conceived to be true, for the charging of the Queen of Scots with the murder of his son,” which the English commissioners did not think worthy of much consideration.

The next day, Mary’s commissioners asked for yet more time in which to prepare an answer to Moray’s Eik. Herries presented this on 1 December, asserting that it was not the punishment of Darnley’s murder that had moved the Lords to rebellion, but the desire to usurp their sovereign’s authority before she could revoke the grants she had made to them in her youth. After reading his statement, Herries asked the English commissioners to consider how dangerous it was for subjects to bring false accusations against their sovereign, and told them that it would soon appear that some of those who were now accusing Mary were themselves privy to the making of bonds for the murder of Darnley. In making these accusations, Herries was exceeding his brief, for Mary had told him and his colleagues merely to demand that she be allowed to appear in person and, if this was refused, to withdraw from the conference. Herries concluded by saying that he and his fellow commissioners could say no more until they had received further instructions from their Queen, and both he and Leslie protested that, as Moray was allowed to appear at the conference, Mary should not only be allowed to attend, but also be permitted to defend herself in person against Moray’s accusations before Queen Elizabeth, her nobility and the foreign ambassadors.