On the 14th February 1567, Cecil sent word to his friend Guzman that he had just received secret advice of the murder of Darnley, of which he gave some hasty particulars. The intelligence could hardly have come as a surprise to the Spaniard, for a month previously he had informed Philip that some such act was contemplated. Within a few hours of the reception of the news in London, Leicester sent his brother, the Earl of Warwick, to Catharine Grey’s husband, to offer him his services in the matter of the succession. Five days afterwards Sir James Melvil came with full particulars of the foul deed at Kirk o’ Field, and at once rumour was busy with the name of Mary Stuart as an accomplice in her husband’s death. Elizabeth expressed sorrow and compassion on the day she heard the news, but rather doubtfully told Guzman “that she could not believe that the Queen of Scots could be to blame for so dreadful a thing, notwithstanding the murmurs of the people.” When Guzman, however, pointed out to her how dangerous it would be for the opposite party (Catharine Grey’s friends) to make capital out of the accusation, the Queen agreed that it would be wise to discountenance it, and to keep friendly with Mary Stuart, in order to prevent her from falling under French influence again.
In a letter from Cecil to Norris (20th February) he says: “The Queen sent yesterday my Lady Howard and my wife to Lady Lennox, in the Tower, to open this matter to her, who could not by any means be kept from such passions of mind as the horribleness of the fact did require.… I hope her Majesty will show some favourable compassion of the said lady, whom any humane nature must needs pity.… The most suspicion that I can hear is of Earl Bothwell, yet I would not be thought the author of any such report.”[242] Lady Margaret, in her agony of grief, made no scruple at first in accusing her daughter-in-law of complicity in the murder; but the bereaved mother left the Tower on the following day, doubtless warned of the unwisdom of saying what she thought. At least, when she saw Sir James Melvil she told him, “She did not believe that Mary had been a party to the death of her son, but she could not help complaining of her bad treatment of him.” But whatever she might say, the spirits of the Catholic party in England sank to zero at the black cloud which hovered over their candidate. “Every day it becomes clearer that the Queen of Scotland must take some step to prove that she had no hand in the death of her husband if she is to prosper in her claims to the succession here,”[243] wrote Guzman. Fortunately this book is not the place in which to discuss the vexed question of Mary’s complicity in Darnley’s death, but her contemporaries both in England and Scotland, as well as abroad, certainly thought her guilty. Cecil, writing to Sir Henry Norris in March, mentions the suspicions against Bothwell, Balfour, &c., and says, “There are words added, which I am loth to report, that touch the Queen of Scots, which I hold best to be suppressed. Further, such persons anointed are not to be thought ill of without manifest proof.”[244] And again, a few days afterwards, he says, “The Queen of Scots is not well spoken of.” The entry of the event in Cecil’s journal makes no mention of Mary. It runs thus: “Feb. 9. The L. Darnley, K. of Scots, was killed and murdered near Edenburgh;” and on the following day the news is amplified thus: “Feb. 10. Hora secunda post mediam noctem Hen. Rex Scotiæ interfectus fuit, per Jac Co. Bothwell, Jac Ormeston de Ormeston, Hob Ormeston patrem dicti Jac Ormeston, Tho Hepbourn.”
Morette, the Duke of Savoy’s special envoy to Scotland, had left Edinburgh the day after the murder, and on his way through London saw Guzman. The Queen of Scots had assured Morette that she would avenge her husband’s death, and punish the murderers, but he made no secret of his belief that she had prior knowledge of the plan. Whilst Morette was dining with Guzman and the French Ambassador, a French messenger named Clerivault arrived at the house, bringing a letter from Mary to the Queen of England, claiming her pity, and similar letters for Catharine de Medici, the Archbishop of Glasgow, and others,[245] denouncing the crime.[246] Mary, indeed, lost no time in endeavouring to put herself right before the world. She offered rewards for the discovery of the murderers; but when all fingers are pointed at Bothwell and his creatures, when public placards were posted in the capital accusing them and hinting at the Queen’s complicity, Mary still kept the principals at her side, and made no move against their subaltern instruments. In vain, for a time, the bereaved father Lennox demanded vengeance; in vain Elizabeth, by Killigrew, sent indignant letters to Mary; in vain the Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow exhorted her to prove her own innocence by pursuing the offenders without mercy. Bothwell stood ever by her side, and his clansmen cowed the murmuring citizens who looked with aversion now upon their beautiful young Queen. At length, goaded to take some action by the danger of losing the Catholic support, upon which alone she had depended, she held the sham trial in the Edinburgh Tolbooth two months after the crime. Lennox refused to attend the travesty of justice, and Bothwell was unanimously acquitted. Murray had left the court before the murder, and fled to France when the result of the trial was known. Bothwell, loaded with favours, insolent with success, seemed to hold Scotland and the Queen in the hollow of his hand. The nobles were mostly bought or threatened into shameful compliance, and only the “preachers” and the townsfolk kept alive the growing horror of the Queen. No longer, even, did the humble peasant women hesitate, before Mary’s face, to make their loyal blessing conditional upon her innocence.[247] What was horrified doubt before became indignant reprobation when, only three months after Darnley’s death, Mary married the hastily divorced Bothwell. Then came the hurried flight in disguise towards Dunbar, the gathering of the nobles, the flight of Bothwell at Carbery Hill, and the conveyance of the disgraced Queen to Edinburgh. When nothing but vows of defiance and vengeance against Bothwell’s enemies could be obtained from her, and it was clear that the unfortunate woman was deaf to reason and decency, came the crowning degradation of Lochleven, and Mary Stuart’s sun set to rise no more.
To a short life of turbulent pleasure succeeded twenty years of plotting against the peace and independence of England and the cause of religious liberty. During that twenty years Cecil and his mistress were pitted against one of the cleverest women in Europe, supported by all that was discontented in England and Scotland, and all that was distinctively Catholic abroad. In the critical position caused by the rising of the Protestant Lords against Bothwell and the Queen, Cecil’s view diverged somewhat from that of Elizabeth. The latter was naturally first concerned at the want of respect shown on all sides to an anointed sovereign, which subject was always a tender one with her; whereas the Secretary was still anxious, before all else, to exclude French influence from Scotland. Writing to Norris in France (26th June), he conveys the news of Mary’s restraint, and at the same time encloses letters from Scotland recalling Murray (then at Lyons), “the sending of which letters requireth great haste, whereof you must not make the Scottish Ambassador privy.[248]… The best part of the (Scots) nobility hath confederated themselves to follow, by way of justice, the condemnation of Bothwell and his complices in the murder of the King. Bothwell defends himself by the Queen’s maintenance and the Hamiltons, so he hath some party, though it be not great. The 15th of this month he brought the Queen into the field with her power, which was so small, as he escaped himself without fighting and left the Queen in the field; and she yielded herself to the Lords, flatly denying to grant justice against Bothwell, so as they have restrained her in Lochleven until they come unto the end of their pursuit against Bothwell.… Murray’s return into Scotland is much desired by them, and for the weal both of England and Scotland I wish he were here. For his manner of returning and safety, I pray require Mr. Stewart to have good care.… The French Ambassador, and Villeroy, who is there (in Scotland), pretend favour to the Lords, with great offers; and it may be that they may do as much on the other side” (i.e. in France).[249] It was this last possibility which so much disturbed Cecil, and it was to avert it that Murray’s return was so ardently desired, for he was known always to be opposed to the French influence in his country. In August, after Murray had returned to Scotland (visiting Elizabeth at Windsor on his way home at the end of July), Cecil wrote again to Norris: “You shall perceive by the Queen’s letter to you herewith how earnestly she is bent in the favour of the Queen of Scots; and truly since the beginning she hath been greatly offended with the Lords in this action;[250] yet no counsel can stay her Majesty from manifesting of her misliking of them; so as, indeed, I think thereby the French may, and will, easily catch them, and make their present profit of them, to the damage of England. In this behalf her Majesty had no small misliking of that book which you sent me written in French, whose (author’s) name yet I know not; but, howsoever, I think him of great wit and acquaintance in the affairs of the world. It is not in my power to procure any reward, and therefore you must so use the matter as he neither be discouraged nor think unkindness in me.”[251]
How much Cecil dreaded renewed French interference in Scotland is seen at this time by his ever-growing cordiality towards Spain. An acrimonious discussion was going on, both in London and in Paris, with regard to the restoration of Calais to England, which was now due by the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis. Cecil and the Queen were both emphatic in their condemnation of the Protestant risings in the Spanish Netherlands, though French agents kept whispering to Guzman that help was being sent thither by England. The union between Cecil and the Spaniard was nevertheless closer than ever. The latter, in March, secretly told Cecil that the King of France was sending De Croc to Scotland,[252] and that there seemed to be some mystery brewing in that quarter. The Secretary replied that he knew it; they had a plot to steal the Prince of Scotland and take him to France, but that steps had been taken to prevent such a thing. Guzman thereupon urged the Queen of England to have the infant Prince brought to England, Mary having told Killigrew that she was willing that this should be done.[253] Indeed, at this time Cecil’s perseverance had quite won Spanish sympathy, and had widened the rift in the Catholic league, as was necessary for England’s safety, Guzman being if anything more eager than Cecil to checkmate the intrigues of the French in Scotland.
The efforts on the other side were just as incessant to divide Spain from England, and more than once at this period caused temporary estrangement between them. In June a somewhat unexpected embassy came from the Emperor, with the object of asking Elizabeth for monetary aid against the Turk. The principal Ambassador, Stolberg, was a Protestant, and the Queen immediately jumped at the incorrect conclusion that he had come to arrange for the wedding of the Archduke. Before even he arrived in London, Stolberg had been persuaded that a great Catholic league had been formed, including his own sovereign the Emperor, with the object of crushing Elizabeth and rooting out Protestantism from Europe; and when, at his formal reception at Richmond,[254] the Queen gave Stolberg an unfavourable reply to his request for aid against the Turk, Cecil took Guzman, who accompanied him, aside and told him that the Queen and Council had learned the particulars of a league of the Catholic powers against Elizabeth and the Protestants,[255] in favour of the Queen of Scots. The better to effect the object, he said, the Emperor had made a disadvantageous truce with the Turk, whereat the English Council was much scandalised, and was determined to make all necessary preparations, this being the reason why the Queen had answered the Ambassador so unfavourably.[256] Guzman was shocked that so sensible a person as Cecil should believe such nonsense. Probably Cecil knew as well as Guzman that the league was dead, so far as united action against England was concerned; but such attempts as this, to serve French ends by arousing jealousy between Spain and England, were constant, and occasionally, as in this instance, aroused some distrust on one side or the other.[257]
As soon as the detention of Mary Stuart was known by the French Government an attempt was made to gain Murray to the side of France, in order to obtain possession of the infant Prince. Murray delayed pledging himself until he received the letters from the Lords and from Cecil, already referred to. He then started with all haste for Scotland, taking London on the way. Whilst in London at the end of July he saw Guzman, and told him as a secret that he had not even communicated to Elizabeth, that a letter existed which proved conclusively the guilt of his sister in the murder of her husband.[258] It was evident thus early that Murray, whilst expressing sympathy for his sister, and deprecating generally any derogation of the dignity of a sovereign, was determined that Mary Stuart should do no more harm to Protestantism or the relationship between Scotland and England, if he could help it. “He said he would do his best to find some means by which she should remain Queen, but without sufficient liberty to do them any harm, or marry against the will of her Council and Parliament.”[259] It is evident, from a letter from Cecil to Norris, that Murray arranged with the former when in England to assume the Regency of Scotland on his arrival, although not without misgiving on the part of Elizabeth, even if she personally was a consenting party to the arrangement. Murray, writing a friendly letter to Cecil early in 1568 (Hatfield Papers), mentions that a report had reached him that Cecil had been told that he (Murray) was offended because Sir William in his first letter had not addressed him as Regent. Murray assures him that this was not the case, and begs him not to allow any such thought to disturb their friendship, “the amity of the two countries being the great object of both … although the Queen, your mistress, outwardly seems not altogether to allow the present state here, yet I doubt not but her Highness in heart liketh it well enough.” Elizabeth was at the time divided between two feelings: that of indignation at any restraint being placed upon a sovereign by subjects, and the knowledge that the imprisonment of Mary meant the disablement of the only individual whom England had to fear. Cecil was fully alive to the latter fact, whilst the former was to him of quite secondary importance when compared with the national issues involved.
When the news came of Mary’s renunciation and the crowning of the infant James, the Lords wrote to Elizabeth, saying that either she must protect them, or they must accept a French alliance; and she was then obliged to prefer the interests of England to her reverence for the sacredness of a sovereign. Guzman thus tells the story: “The Queen told me she did not know what was best to be done, and asked my opinion, pointing out to me the inexpediency of showing favour to so bad an example, and, on the other hand, the danger to her of a new alliance of these people with the French … I think I see more inclination on her part to aid them (the Scots) than the case at present demands, as I gave her many reasons for delay, whilst she still insisted that it was necessary to act at once.” The next day (August 9) the tone of the Queen had somewhat changed. She would, she said, recall Throgmorton from Scotland, as it was beneath her dignity to have an Ambassador accredited to a sovereign in duress,[260] and she would refuse her protection and aid to the Lords. The reason for this perhaps was that “the letter she writes to Throgmorton is very short. I have seen it, though I could not read it. It was in the hands of Lord Robert (i.e. Leicester), who dictated it, and he carried it to the Queen for signature in my presence, Cecil not being present.”[261] Cecil, indeed, at this juncture had to proceed with great caution, and, as usual, by indirect and devious ways. Leicester, Pembroke, and their friends had now (August), as Guzman says, “no rivals, as Secretary Cecil proceeds respectfully, and the rest who might support him are absent. He knows well, however, that he is more diligent than they, and so keeps his footing.”
In the meanwhile the Catholics in England were allowed almost perfect immunity, whilst, on the other hand, strong land and sea forces were mustered, as a counterbalance to the great army to be led into Flanders by Alba. The closest friendship existed between the Spaniards and Cecil, who was never tired of assuring Guzman that Hawkins’ great expedition, then on the coast bound for Guinea, should under no circumstances do anything prejudicial in any of the territories of the King of Spain; notwithstanding which, and the fact that Philip’s Flemish fleet had just been effusively welcomed at Dover, John Hawkins himself, when the same fleet put into Plymouth, fired a few cannon shots at the flagship, and banged away until the Spanish flag was hauled down, to the unspeakable indignation of the Flemish admiral.