by Alison Weir
Cecil was greatly in favour of an investigation into Mary’s guilt, but English courts had no jurisdiction over foreign princes, and as this particular crime had been committed in Scotland, it was clear from the first that the Queen of Scots could not be put on trial; the only course open to the English was to hold an inquiry into her conduct. If Mary’s guilt could somehow be established, and her reputation publicly destroyed, Elizabeth would be justified in keeping her in custody, and her supporters would hopefully abandon her; thus the threat she posed would be neutralised. The first priority, therefore, was to convince Mary that an inquiry was in her best interests.
As soon as Moray received Drury’s message, which was around 26/27 May, he began to prepare his case. He was, of course, concerned to justify the continued existence of his government, and his own political survival, by proving Mary’s guilt. If she were found innocent, his position in Scotland, and that of his fellow Lords, would become untenable. It was therefore imperative that he use all the resources at his disposal to establish her guilt. Once again, the Scottish propaganda machine swung into action, this time in a deliberate campaign to blacken Mary’s name.
Moray had already sent John Wood to London on 21 May, “to damage the cause of Mary with Queen Elizabeth and the English nobility.”12Wood arrived in London before 27 May, and Nau says that, after Elizabeth had heard what he had to say, her kindness towards Mary diminished somewhat. Moray also dispatched at this time a mercenary soldier, Captain John Clerk, to Denmark to take Bothwell dead or alive.
On 21 or 22 May, Cecil had asked Lennox, who was visiting his wife at Chiswick, to demand justice against Mary for Darnley’s murder. Lennox needed no further prompting, and immediately set to work on a “Supplication,” which would later form the basis of the three versions of his Narrative;13he used as his chief sources Thomas Crawford and Thomas Nelson, with whom he had no doubt discussed Darnley’s murder on several occasions. The resulting text, which was completed between 26 and 28 May, was a masterpiece of character assassination, in which authentic details blended with falsehoods and distortions. For example, Nelson had testified that Mary initially meant to take Darnley to Craigmillar in January 1567, but Lennox does not mention Craigmillar; instead, he states that Darnley was taken to a place “already prepared with undermines and trains of powder,” which cannot be true. In some respects, the “Supplication” is contradicted by the evidence in the depositions, which had been kept secret. In the later versions of the Narrative, some of these discrepancies have been amended. Lennox is also at variance in many respects with the propaganda of Buchanan. One example is his claim that Mary’s adultery with Bothwell began before the birth of the Prince; Buchanan states it began about three months afterwards.
Curiously, Lennox refers to only one of the Casket Letters; he says it was “written to Bothwell from Glasgow” before Mary left with Darnley for Edinburgh, and sent to let him understand that, although the flattering and sweet words of the King her husband had almost overcome her, yet she, remembering the great affection which she bare unto [Bothwell], there should be no such sweet baits dissuade her or cool her said affection from him, but would continue therein, yea, though she should thereby abandon her God, put in adventure the loss of her dowry in France, hazard such titles as she had to the crown of England and also the crown of her realm. Wishing him then presently in her arms, [she] therefore bade him go forward with all things according to their enterprise, and that the place and everything might be finished as they had devised, against her coming to Edinburgh And for the time of execution thereof, she thought it best to be the night of Bastien’s marriage. She also wrote in her letter that Bothwell should in no wise fail in the meantime to dispatch his wife, and to give her the drink as they had devised before.14
In most respects, this was the letter that Moray had described to de Silva. Lennox had either been shown it, or told about it, while he was in Scotland, or he had got his information from the ambassador in London. Lennox presented his “Bill of Supplication” to Elizabeth on 28 May.
The evidence suggests that, until Moray heard from Cecil on 26/27 May, he had intended to use just one of the Casket Letters against Mary, if need be. None of the other letters had ever been referred to individually, but they probably did exist at this time: although the word “letters” was used in both singular and plural contexts, there had been several references to “copies” and “writings.” Most of these other letters were probably genuine letters of Mary’s that were to be used out of context (possibly Casket Letters I, part of II, III, IV, V and VIII); they were perhaps considered insufficiently incriminating or convincing, and had only been kept for use as a last resort. It was probably at this time, therefore, that they were tampered with and that Casket Letters VI and VII, the marriage contracts and the sonnets, were forged. Moray was now prepared to use every weapon at his disposal against Mary.
On 22 June, Moray told Cecil that Wood had in his possession copies of the Casket Letters in Scots.15It has often been assumed that they were sent to him in a packet that Drury speedily forwarded from Moray on 30 May, but, on the assumption that the decision was taken on 27 May to produce more incriminating letters, that would have given the Lords three days at the most to doctor and forge their evidence. It is more likely that the copies were sent to Wood later in June, and that they included a revised version of the letter referred to by de Silva and Lennox, which was probably Casket Letter II as we know it. It would be safe to assume that all the letters received by Wood were in their final form.
On 27 May, Moray commissioned George Buchanan, that staunch Lennox man, to prepare an indictment against Mary. This indictment was written in Latin in the closing days of May, and later formed the basis for Buchanan’s Detectio and his History. Again, it was a tour de force of vitriolic anti-Marian propaganda, calculated to discredit Mary in English eyes as a monster of moral depravity and thus destroy Elizabeth’s sympathy for her. That it was based on second-hand knowledge, and was flawed, distorted and grossly inaccurate in parts, mattered little at a time when so much hung on it making a deadly impact on those who heard it. Masked by such powerful rhetoric, its inconsistencies went unnoticed.
Balfour may have assisted Buchanan in collating evidence. On 11 July, Drury reported that he was in confidential relations with Moray and employed on the most secret affairs of the state.16
Buchanan’s indictment was completed at the beginning of June. He himself refers to the haste with which it had been written, which is testimony to the sense of urgency felt by the Lords with regard to the amassing and production of evidence.
On 28 May, Knollys and Scrope saw Mary at Carlisle and told her that she could not be received at the English court until she had been acquitted of Darnley’s murder, and that that could only be achieved by submitting to Elizabeth’s judgement. Mary reacted by bursting “into a great passion of weeping,” and averred that no one but God “could take upon them to judge princes.” She asked that she might be permitted to state her case before Elizabeth, and insisted that the charges against her had been a mere pretext. She had, she added, counter-accusations to make. Firstly, Morton and Maitland had assented to the murder of Darnley, “as it could well be proved, although now they would seem to persecute the same.” Furthermore, the real cause of the Lords’ rebellion was the desire of the rebels “to keep by violence that which she had given so liberally, since by her revocation thereof within full age, they could not enjoy it by law.”17This was to be refuted by Wood in writing, at Cecil’s instigation, on 5 June.18
Knollys was impressed by Mary’s sincerity. In his report to Elizabeth, he wrote that everyone in the north of England was convinced of her innocence.19After Knollys and Scrope had left, Mary wrote to Elizabeth, complaining of her detention and offering to appear before her to purge herself of the calumnies of her enemies. Herries took the letter to London.
Knollys saw Mary again on 30 May, and discussed her forced abdication. She bitterly condemned Moray’s conduct,
but Knollys pointed out that, if princes could lawfully be deposed for insanity, they could also be deposed for murder, “for the one is an evil humour proceeding of melancholy, and the other is an evil humour proceeding of choler; wherefore the question is whether Your Grace deserved to be put from the government or not, for if Your Grace should be guilty of any such odious crime, then how should they be blamed that have deposed you?” In tears, Mary protested again that she was innocent, only to be told once more that the only way to be purged of any crime was in submitting to Elizabeth’s judgement. His Queen, he added, would be “the gladdest in the world” to see Mary declared innocent.20
On 8 June, Elizabeth sent an envoy, Throckmorton’s cousin Henry Middlemore, to Scotland, with instructions to stop at Carlisle on the way and deliver her reply to Mary’s letter of 28 May. In it, Elizabeth promised that she would restore Mary to her throne if she would permit her to hold an official inquiry to establish her innocence. However, she could not receive Mary until that had been done.
“Oh, Madam,” she protested, “there is no creature living who wishes to hear such a declaration more than I. But I cannot sacrifice my reputation on your account. To tell you the truth, I am already thought to be more willing to defend your cause than to open my eyes to see the things of which your subjects accuse you.” However, Mary could rest assured that she would be as careful of Mary’s life and honour as Mary herself was, and that, “once honourably acquitted of this crime, I swear to you before God that, among all worldy pleasures, [receiving you] will hold the first rank.”21
Elizabeth also sent a letter to Moray, accusing him of “very strange doings ” against a sovereign prince. Rather stretching the truth, she told him that Mary was “content to commit the ordering of her cause to us,” and insisted that he inform her of his defence “against such weighty crimes as the Queen has already [objected], or shall hereafter, object against you.”22Her letter was entrusted to Middlemore.
On 11 June, John Wood visited Lennox at Chiswick. That day, he wrote a letter on Lennox’s behalf to Moray, asking rather belatedly for certain information about Darnley’s murder, and in particular about the activities of Archbishop Hamilton. Lennox, however, still held the Queen to be the chief culprit, for, referring to the Casket Letters, he observed that “there is sufficient evidence in her own handwriting to condemn her.” Lennox also sent to Crawford, Robert Cunningham and another of his henchmen, John Stewart, ordering them to use every means to obtain further evidence against Mary. This all suggests that he did not think his “Supplication” went far enough, and that he was preparing a stronger case to lay before the inquiry.
By the summer of 1568, there was growing support in Scotland for the Queen’s party. Huntly and the Hamiltons were still staunch in their loyalty, and her adherents numbered both Catholics and Protestants. A recent convert to her cause was Kirkcaldy of Grange, who had never been comfortable with the Lords’ treatment of Mary. As its Governor, he now held Edinburgh Castle for her. Maitland had also had a change of heart, and was now working in secret with Atholl for her restoration.
Bishop Leslie had now joined Mary at Carlisle, and early in June, she sent him to London, where he and Herries were to seek an audience with Queen Elizabeth and plead their mistress’s case.23Knollys reported on 11 June that Mary showed a great desire to be revenged on her enemies. The next day, Wood reported to Maitland that Mary had accused him and Morton of Darnley’s murder, and warned them against attending the inquiry in England, in case Mary made her accusations public.24Maitland took this warning very much to heart.
On 13 June, Middlemore arrived at Carlisle and delivered Elizabeth’s letter to Mary. After reading it, she burst out passionately that she was an absolute prince and only God could judge her, and that there were things that she would reveal only to Elizabeth, face to face. Why could Elizabeth not summon Maitland and Morton to London, and let them debate the matter with her in Elizabeth’s presence?25
When Middlemore had gone, Mary wrote to Elizabeth, telling her to remove from her mind the notion that she had come into England for the preservation of her life. On the contrary, she had come to clear my honour and obtain assistance to chastise my false accusers; not to answer them as their equal, but to accuse them before you. Being innocent, as—God be thanked—I know I am, do you not wrong me by keeping me here, encouraging by that means my perfidious foes to continue their determined falsehoods? I neither can nor will answer their false accusations, although I will with pleasure justify myself to you voluntarily as friend to friend; but not in the form of a process with my subjects.26
Herries and Leslie saw Elizabeth and her Council around 14 June. They protested that Mary was innocent, and solemnly affirmed that the Confederate Lords, “who, under the pretext of this crime, wished to deprive their sovereign of her life and dignity, were the very men by whose most wicked plots and devices this crime was perpetrated, a crime of which she was wholly ignorant. Already, it was well understood by the larger portion of her nobility,” and her supporters were so “strong in their conviction, they had risked their lives and all that they possessed in defending the innocence of their sovereign.” The Council promised that Herries and Leslie would have an answer to their complaints in three days.27
On the 17th, Elizabeth saw Herries in private and told him that she was still waiting for a favourable answer from Mary to her letters, to which he replied that there would be no other reply than that which she had already received. Mary was “entirely guiltless, and will prove her innocence very clearly, not only to Your Majesty, but also to all the other sovereigns of Christendom.” Elizabeth undertook to summon Moray and try to ascertain what had induced him to treat Mary “contrary to all law and justice.” If, she said, after hearing his side of the matter, Mary’s accusations still seemed justified, “I will defend her cause just as I would defend my own.” Otherwise, she would do her best to bring about a reconciliation between Mary and her subjects. However, she would not act as a judge in the matter. Herries believed that she was playing for time, and that Mary “had little to hope for in that quarter.”28
The Council met on 20 June and declared its support for Elizabeth’s refusal to receive Mary. The Queen, they declared, could not in honour aid or restore her cousin, or suffer her to depart from the realm “before her cause be honourably tried.” It was decided at this meeting that Mary should be moved from Carlisle in case she tried to escape.29
Fleming had now joined Herries in London, and on 22 June, Elizabeth saw them both and “made her final reply,” declaring that she would defend Mary in every way, but in so doing she had to have “due regard to her own good name and dignity.” She could therefore do no less than inquire into the truth of the accusations, and intended to summon Moray and his friends into her presence, and to entrust the inquiry to her Councillors; and if there was no truth in the charges against Mary, she would defend her cause. Otherwise, she would try to place Mary “on a good footing with her subjects.”
But Herries was not deceived by her fair words. “For whatever the Queen of England might pretend, her real intentions towards her cousin were clearly proclaimed by her actions. She has been boasting in private of the great captive she has made without having incurred the expenses of a war.”30Herries had also learned that James MacGill was on his way to London with “certain pretended Acts of Parliament,” which declared that Mary had voluntarily abdicated. Herries had secured Elizabeth’s agreement that MacGill should not be received at court, but she received him anyway.31
When Middlemore reached Scotland and delivered Elizabeth’s letter to Moray, he found the Scottish Lords anxious to stress Mary’s guilt. But Moray was perturbed by Elizabeth’s demand that he justify his actions to her, and on 22 June, he told Middlemore that he had specifically sent John Wood to London with matter he trusted would resolve the Queen’s doubts. Because the case was to be aired in public, he was “most loath” to make any accusations against Mary, “for all men may judge how dangerous and
prejudicial that should be.” Therefore, “it were most reasonable we understood what we should look to follow thereupon, in case we prove all that we allege; otherwise, we shall be as uncertain after the cause concluded as we are at present. And therefore we pray Her Highness in this point to resolve us.”
He then turned to the matter of the Casket Letters. “It may be that such letters as we have of the Queen that sufficiently, in our opinion, proves her consenting to the murder of the King, shall be called in doubt by the judges.” Since Wood had copies of the letters in Scots, we would earnestly desire that the said copies may be considered by the judges that shall have the examination of this matter, that they may resolve us this far, in case the principal [originals] agree with the copy, that then we prove the cause indeed. For when we have manifested and shown all, and yet shall have no assurance that it we send shall satisfy for probation, for what purpose shall we either accuse, or take care how to prove, when we are not assured what to prove, or, when we have proved, what shall succeed?32
What Moray was asking was, in effect, that the commissioners (who had not yet been appointed) would comment on the veracity of his evidence before it had been submitted to the inquiry, which was outrageous, considering that he was an interested party. He also wanted to know what would happen if the Lords proved their case, for, if he accused Mary of murder, he was burning his boats as far as reaching a compromise with her was concerned. He was also well aware that, whether Mary was guilty or not, Elizabeth, for political considerations, might attempt to restore her at any time, with fearful consequences for himself. Both his requests reveal his awareness of the enormity of the charges he was laying against his sovereign. If his evidence had been genuine, it is unlikely that he would have betrayed such anxiety. But, as has been demonstrated, it was not, it was essentially flawed and corrupt, and he knew that there was a risk of discovery. This is why he was asking for guarantees.
