# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Mary (1542-1587)

1904 Errata appended.
​MARY Queen of Scots (1542–1587), third child and only daughter of James V of Scotland [q. v.] and Mary of Guise [q. v.], was born in Linlithgow Palace on 7 or 8 Dec. 1542. The 7th is the date in the register of Lothian (Chalmers, i. 2) and that given by Leslie (De Origine, &c, p. 459); for the 8th there is the authority of the 'Diurnal of Occurrents' (p. 25), Knox (Works, i. 91), and Mary herself (Labanoff, vi. 68). To the king, overwhelmed by the rout of Solway, the birth of a daughter seemed only a portent of calamity. 'It [the dynasty] came,' he exclaimed, 'from a woman, and, it will end with a woman' (Knox, i. 91). By his death on 14 Dec. 1542 the infant princess became queen, Negotiations for a treaty of marriage between her and Prince Edward of England were frustrated by Cardinal Beaton, who on 23 July 1543 removed her and her mother to Stirling Castle (cf. Mary of Guise). After she had been crowned there by Beaton on 9 Sept., she was entrusted to the care of Lords Erskine and Livingstone. Shortly after Pinkie Cleugh, 10 Sept. 1547, she was sent for security to the priory of Inchmahome, on an island in the Lake of Menteith (Discharge of Lords Erskine and Livingstone in Sir William Fraser's Red Book of Menteith, ii. 3), and on the last day of February 1547-8 (note in Knox, Works, i. 219) she was transferred to Dumbarton Castle, the stronghold most accessible to France. On 7 July 1548 the estates not only ratified an agreement for her marriage to the dauphin of France (Francis II), but decided that she should immediately be sent thither. She accordingly on 7 Aug. set sail in one of the royal galleys of France, and, disembarking on the 13th at Brest, arrived at St. Germains on 11 Oct. (De Ruble, La Première Jeunesse, 1891, p. 19). Lady Fleming was assigned her as governess, and she was accompanied by her companions, the ' Four Marys ' — young maidens of the houses of Livingstone, Fleming, Seton, and Beaton.
Mary was educated with the royal children of France, her studies being directed by Margaret, sister of Henry II, one of the most accomplished and learned ladies of her time. That she acquired a fair knowledge of Latin is attested by exercises written in 1554 (published by the Warton Club, 1855), and she had some acquaintance with Greek and Italian, but was not taught English or Scots, it being the first care of her guardians that France should be paramount in her affections. She had a preference for poetry, in which she was instructed by Ronsard, but her own verses lack distinction. Although she early displayed exceptional intelligence and discretion, her chief endowment was the unique charm of her personality, which won for her affection even more than it attracted admiration. Writing in 1553, the Cardinal of Lorraine affirmed that among daughters of noble or commoner he had never seen her equal in the kingdom (Labanoff, i. 9). Her beauty, supposed to be unrivalled in her time, owed its enchantment rather to brilliancy of complexion and grace of manner than to finely formed features. Possessing a sweet and rich voice she sang well, accompanying herself gracefully on the lute (Brantôme). Her skill in elocution evoked the admiration of the French court when in 1554 she delivered a Latin oration in praise of learned ladies (Fouquelin in Dedication of Retoric Françoise; Brantôme).
Perhaps insufficient allowance has been made for careless exaggeration in Brantôme's portraiture of the French court in the time of Mary; but one of h«r devoted advocates has affirmed that her mother, after her visit to her in 1550, 'arranged for her removal to a healthier moral atmosphere' (Stevenson, Mary Stuart, First Eighteen Years of her Life, p. 91). No such arrangement was carried out. She was neither separated from the ​ royal children of France nor withdrawn from the court. She mingled more and more freely in its cultured and epicurean society ; but the Cruises, especially Antoinette de Bourbon and the Cardinal of Lorraine, had frequent access to her, and took charge both of her political and religious instruction. Lady Flemmg who had become a mistress of the French king, was in 1551 succeeded as governess by Madame Paroys, with whose strict training of Mary ' in the old faith ' the cardinal expressed entire satisfaction (23 Feb. 1552-1553, Labaxoff, i. 16). Nor, although Mary became estranged from her governess (lift, pp. 29, 35, 41), did this affect her religious partialities. Her lot from the beginning involved strange incongruities. She was at once the cynosure of the gay court of France and the hope of Catholicism. Though cradled in luxury she yet learned to cherish an exacting and strenuous ambition. No daughter of any royal house possessed prospects so brilliant, but they were qualified by a betrothal to a prince whose weak and sickly habit inspired pity rather than affection; and the marriage was prefaced by an agreement by which she not only forswore herself, but betrayed her royal trust. While the public marriage contract of 19 April 1558 contained special guarantees for the independence of Scotland, Mary had already, on the 4th, signed three separate deeds which made these guarantees a dead letter. By the first, Scotland in the event of her death without issue was made over in free gift to the crown of France ; by the second, Scotland and its revenues were at once assigned to Henry II until he had reimbursed himself of the money spent in its defence; and by' the third, any agreement which the estates might induce her- to make contrary to the two previous deeds was renounced by anticipation (Fenelon, i. 425-9; Labaxoff, i. 50-5).
The marriage was performed in the church of Notre-Dame on 24 April, and, as insuring the ascendency of France in Scotland and possibly in Britain and all its isles, was celebrated with fetes of unusual splendour (see Ceremonies in Teulbt, i. 302-11; Discovers du Grande et Magnifique Triumpke, &c, Rouen, 1558, and Roxburghe Club, 1818; Venetian ambassador's letter, Calcedar Venetian State Papers, 1557-8, entry 1216). In November the Scottish crown matrimonial was voted to the dauphin {Acta Parl. Scot. ii. 506-7).
Meanwhile, on the death of Queen Mary of England, 17 Nov. 1558, Mary Stuart, on the more than plausible grounds of Elizabeth's illegitimacy, laid claim to the English throne as great-granddaughter of Henry VII. In England Elizabeth was declared queen without opposition, but the dauphin and Mary assumed the titles of king and queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and continued to use them on succeeding to the French throne at the death of Henry II, 10 July 1559. The Edinburgh treaty of July 1560 between England and Scotland bound Mary and her husband to abandon their claims to the English throne, but they refused to ratify it. Possibly, as some suppose, Mary thus provoked the settled distrust, if not enmity, of Elizabeth. Elizabeth wished to fetter a dangerous rival, and Mary aimed atrousingcatholic sensibility,and even to compass Elizabeth's excommunication. But the death of the French king on 5 Dec 1560 blasted these hopes. All that tenderness and affection could achieve to heal her consort's maladies and prolong his life had been guaranteed by Mary's devotion. For a time Mary was prostrated in despair. ' She will not receive any consolation, wrote the Venetian ambassador, ' but, brooding over her disasters with constant tears and passionate and doleful lamentations, she universally inspires great pity ' (Cal. Venetian State Papers, 1558-80, entry 215). Not only haci she ceased to be queen of France ; her place of power was now held by the hostile Catherine ae Medici. She was virtually excluded from the court, and she felt already that France was no longer her home (Sir James Melville, Memoirs, pp. 86-8 ; Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1560-1, entry 832; Chebuel, Marie Stuart et Catherine, de Medicis, p. 17). Of Scotland she was scarce sovereign even in name ; her mother had died 10 Jan. 15C0 as the reins of government were slipping from her hands. Heresy was there triumphant, and the catholic religion proscribed. Already the Scottish estates had been negotiating for the barter of the crown to her rival Elizabeth by a marriage between Elizabeth and James Hamilton, third earl of Arran [q. v.]
The Arran negotiations proved, however, the turning-point in Mary's fortunes. Two days after the death of Francis, Elizabeth replied that ' she was not disposed presently to marry' (Her Majesty's Answer in Keith, i. 9-10, and Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1560-1501, entry 780). The news of Francis's death and of Elizabeth's rejection of Arran reached Scotland almost simultaneously, and produced a strong reaction in Marv's favour. Already William Maitland of Lethington [q. v.] saw that the nobility would 'begin to make' court to the Scottish queen more than they were wont f (ib. entry 875). Nor was ​ she slow to utilise the providential opportunity. In January 1560 she despatched certain Scotsmen with more than three hundred letters to nobles, barons, and others of influence, couched in most affectionate terms, and proposing to consign recent troubles and disputes to oblivion (ib. entry 889 ; Labanoff, i. 85-8). She also desired a deputation to be sent from the estates to inform her of the measures they had taken for the tranquillity of the kingdom (ib. i. 80-4). She intimated her intention to return as soon as she had completed arrangements in France ; but according to Thockmorton she ' wished it to be at the request and suit of her subjects' (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1560-1, entry 832). Her endeavours were entirely successful. The protestant Lord James Stewart was sent to ' know her mind,' and Maitland greatly feared that ' many simple men ' would be ' brought abed with fair words ' (6 Feb. ib. entry 967) ; but both Lord James and Maitland saw that the experiment of her return must be tried. Their endeavours were concentrated on ren- dering it as innocuous as possible — to themselves as well as to protestantism. Mean- time the catholics of the north had despatched John Leslie [q. v.], afterwards bishop of Ross, and others to propose to Mary to land at Aberdeen (Leslie, Be Origine, &c, p. 575), where a force of twenty thousand men under Huntly [see Gordon, George, fourth Earl of Huntly] would be in readiness to conduct her in triumph to her throne. On 15 April Leslie had an interview with her at Vitry ; but although he himself was cordially welcomed, his futile and embarrassing proposals were at once rejected. She could not afford to defy, at present, both Elizabeth and Lord James. The latter, on the day following, was therefore received with affectionate and sisterly greetings. An endeavour was even made to win him over to Catholicism by the offer of great rewards and dignities (Thockmorton, 1 May, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1561-2, entry 158 ; with which compare letter of 31 March, ib. entry 77) ; but at last she professed to be convinced of the wisdom of not interfering with the religious status quo in Scotland, only stipulating for her own personal freedom in the exercise of her religion.
But as yet Mary had not finally decided to entrust her fortunes to Scotland. Her thoughts were then chiefly occupied with the problem of a second marriage. Hardly had her husband breathed his last before the Guises were in search of an alliance that would restore their ascendency. They had the choice of many suitors, including Arran and also Darnley, but only two persons, and these not suitors, were deemed eligible. The first choice, Charles IX, brother of the late king, was promptly negatived by Catherine de Medici. Thereupon the Cardinal of Lorraine approached, in December 1560, the Spanish ambassador with a proposal for Don Carlos (Chantonnay to Philip, quoted by Mignet, and also by De Ruble, p. 109), but, partly through the intervention of Catherine de Medici, negotiations were indefinitely suspended (see especially Philippson, Marie Stuart, i. 274-9). It was only after their failure that Mary resigned herself to the perilous venture of returning to her kingdom. In accordance with the promise of Maitland (6 Feb. 1560-1, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1560-1, entry 967), Lord James unreservedly informed Throckmorton, Elizabeth's envoy, of the tenor of his interview with Mary (ib. entries 133, 151, 158). It is unnecessary to suppose, as some have done, that he intended to prejudice Mary in the eyes of Elizabeth. Doubtless he wished Elizabeth to realise the dangers of the crisis, but his aim probably was to convince her of the necessity of conciliating both Mary and the Scottish nation. The estates in May 1561 gave an evasive answer to the proposal of M. Noailles for a renewal of the league with France, and rejected the request to restore their patrimonies to the deposed catholic bishops ; but Lord James, on 10 June, sent to Marv a long and conciliatory letter (Addit. MS/Brit. Mus. 32091, f. 189, printed in App. to Philippson, Marie Stuart). The only special precaution taken in view of her return was an enactment by the council for the l destruction of all places and monuments of idolatry ' (Knox, ii. 167).
To Elizabeth, Mary's return was in itself unwelcome, and while the treaty of Edinburgh remained unsigned, it was deemed an act of open defiance. But in this soreness of Elizabeth Mary saw her advantage. She explained that when she assumed the style and title of England she 'was under the commandment of King Henry and her husband,' and affirmed that since her husband's death she had not used them (Throckmorton, 26 July, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1561-2, entry 336). She alsocogently pleaded that it was 'very hard being so nigh the blood of England to be made a stranger to it' (ib.) Yet she did not decline to sign the treaty; she would consult the estates after her arrival in Scotland. Her attitude won the sympathy of the Scots. To a somewhat menacing letter of Elizabeth (Knox, ii. 175-8) the council replied in evasive terms ​ (ib. p. 178). The truth was, they had no wish that Mary should sign the treaty. The nomination by Henry VIII of the Lady Frances and her issue as next in succession to Elizabeth was an act of hostility to Scotland. The proposed Arran marriage would have solved the difficulty, but Elizabeth's rejection of it left the Scots no option but to recall Mary ; and with her as sovereign, goodwill between the two kingdoms would be impossible till the insult to the Scottish dynasty was withdrawn. On 6 Aug. Lord James therefore wrote to Elizabeth suggesting that while Elizabeth's full rights should be recognised, Mary should be designated heir-presumptive (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1561-2, entry 384). The dangers that might be obviated by this arrangement were also dexterously indicated by Maitland in two remarkable letters of 9 (ib. p. 238) and 10 Aug. (Keith, iii. 211-16). He feared that Mary's coming could not ' fail to raise wonderful tragedies,' unless some method 'might be compassed that the queen's majesty and her highness might be dear friends as they were tender cousins.' Meantime Mary's excuses and promises only hardened the determination of Elizabeth to withhold the passport (Throckmorton corresp. in Keith, ii. 26-64 ; Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1561-2, entries 108, 110, 124, 155, 158, 180, 208, and 214). She had even some thoughts of intercepting her on the voyage, but — apparently influenced by a letter of Mary (8 Aug., cf. ib. entry 404), by the representations of Mary's ambassador, St. Colme (MSmoire in La- banoff, i. 99-102), by the advice of Throckmorton (11 Aug., Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. entry 395), and by the suggestions of Lord James and Maitland — she recoiled from the half-formed intention. On 16 Aug. she informed Mary that learning she intended to follow the advice of her council on the treaty she was ' content to suspend her concept of all unkindness ' (printed in Robertson, Hist. of Scotland, 5th ed. ii. 327-9).
Mary had left France before Elizabeth's letter was penned. On 21 July she had expressed to Throckmorton the hope that she might not be driven on Elizabeth's inhospitable shores; but if she were, then might Elizabeth, she said, ' do her pleasure and make sacrifice of me.' ' Peradventure,' she added, in words whose foreboding pathos the future more than justified, 'that casualty might be better for me than to live ' (Keith, ii. 51). To defeat any projects for her capture, she, however, while naming 26 Aug. to the Scottish authorities as the date of her probable arrival, set sail from Calais on the loth. Brant ome records her passionate grief at bidding farewell to France. It was intensified by her cheerless prospects. She had resolved to take up the task at which her mother had failed, and only trouble and danger seemed in store for her. On the voyage she was accompanied by three of her uncles, and one hundred other gentlemen and attendants, including the Sieur de Brantome, Castelnau, Chastelard, and her confessor. On account of a dense fog — foreshadowing, according to Knox, the ' sorrow, dolour, darkness, and all impietie ' incident to her coming ( Works, ii. 269) — the galleys lay all night of the 18th at anchor some distance from the shore, but it cleared off sufficiently to permit them to enter the harbour of Leith in the morning. Xo preparations had been made for her arrival at Holyrood, and she did not journey thither till the evening. ' Fires of joy were set forth all night ' (ib. p. 270), and a i company of the most honest ' serenaded her with violins and the dismal chanting of Reformation melodies (ib.; Brantome).
Mary had frankly told Throckmorton that though ' she meant to constrain none of her subjects ' in religion, she wished they were all as she was (23 June 1561, Keith, ii. 33). Accordingly, on her first Sunday in Scotland mass was said in her private chapel, a vow of Lord Lindsay and others that ' the idolater priest should die the death ' being frustrated by Lord James Stewart. This connivance at 'idolatry' provoked a violent outburst from Knox, who declared that 'one mass was more fearful to him than ten thousand armed enemies' (Works, ii. 276). Mary called him into her presence and plied him with arguments, upbraidings, threats, and tears, but only to convince him of her 'proud mind,' 'crafty wit,' and ' indurate heart ' (ib. p. 286 ; Knox to Cecil, 31 Oct.; Haynes, p. 372 ; Cal. Hatfield MSS. pt. i. p. 262). Her passion had unwittingly betrayed her ; but probably as yet she did not adequately understand the situation. The proclamation of 25 Aug., forbidding on pain of death any ' alteration or innovation in the state of religion ' (Knox, ii. 272), was a mere provisionary arrangement till the meeting of parliament. Shortly after her arrival she had informed the pope of her determination to restore Catholicism (letter of the pope, 3 Dec, in the Bibl. Barb. Rome, quoted in Philippson, Marie Stusirt, ii. 33, 37), and her first purpose probably was to secure general toleration for catholics. But after Maitland's return in October from his mission to England, her attitude towards protestantism became almost deprecatory. The administration of affairs was left in the hands of Maitland and Lord James, and ​ on 25 Oct. Maitland wrote that Elizabeth 'would be able to do much with her in religion' (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1561-2, entry 632). But if Maitland, in common with others, was beguiled by the ' enchantment -whereof men are bewitched ' (Knox, ii. 276), both Mary and Elizabeth were already entangled in Maitland's diplomatic toils.
Perhaps alone of those concerned in the succession negotiations, Mary had no interest except a personal one in the scheme for 'uniting the isles in friendship.' Originally her patriotism was limited to France, but even this patriotism was now dead. If in politics she cherished any interests beyond personal ones, they were those of Catholicism. But she entered into Maitland's projects with fervour, and put forth every artifice to win Elizabeth's recognition. Some have supposed that she blundered in not acknowledging Elizabeth's original rights; but this might have hampered her final purpose, and, at any rate until her own interest in the crown of England had been l put in good order ' (Mary, 5 Jan. 1561-2, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. entry 784), it would have been folly to recognise Elizabeth's title. She did not adopt the attitude of a suppliant. Elizabeth's gain, Maitland said, was 'assured and present,' Mary's only 'in possibility and altogether uncertain ' (ib. p. 536; Haynes, p. 397).
The indiscretion of Lady Catherine Grey, who was now a prisoner in the Tower, re- moved one of the chief obstacles to Mary's recognition, and the efforts of the Guises to contract a friendly alliance with Elizabeth also for a time told strongly in Mary's favour. While loth to comply with Mary's demands Elizabeth really desired a reconciliation, and proposed an interview in England in July 1562. Mary had all but gained her purpose when the massacre of French protestants by the Guises at Vassy on 1 May suddenly darkened her prospects. Nevertheless Maitland on the 25th left for England to make final arrangements (Diurnal of Oecurmits, p. 72). The hope was held out that Elizabeth might be 'the instrument to convert Mary to Christ and the knowledge of His true word ' (Randolph, 26 May, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1562, entry 34), and Mary, lamenting with tears the ' unadvised enterprise' of her uncles, intimated that even for their friendship she would not sacrifice that of Elizabeth. Notwithstanding the French troubles Elizabeth wished the conference to take place, but in deference to the council it was postponed till August or September (articles, ib. entry 312), and soon afterwards, on account of the resumption of hostilities in France, till the following summer (Instructions in Keith, ii. 145-57). This last postponement drove ' Mary into such a passion that she kept her bed ' a whole day (Sidney, 25 July, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1562, entry 360). To Elizabeth she expressed her great regret that the opportunity for ' a tender and familiar acquaintance ' should be thus frustrated (Keith, ii. 152 ; Labanoff, i. 147-8).
In Scotland the excitement attending Mary's arrival gradually gave place to a tranquil calm, only slightly disturbed by the contumacious harangues of Knox, the vague rumours of catholic intrigues, and the discovery, 26 March 1562, of a mad scheme of Arran, possibly countenanced by Both well [see Hepburn, James, fourth Earl of Bothwell], for carrying off the queen to Dumbarton Castle. Mary won the high esteem of her council by her geniality and her sound discretion, but political cares seemed to sit lightly upou her. Like her father she loved to mingle in the daily life of her people, and nothing delighted her more than an unceremonious visit to the house of a plain burgher. She entered with zest into the outdoor sport s of her nobles, especially hawking and ' shooting at the butts,' and infected their staid and sombre manners with something of the 'joyousitie' of France. Knox grimly remarked that while in the presence of her council ' she kept herself very grave ; ' as soon as ever ' her French fillocks, fiddlers, and others of that band gat the house alone, then might be seen skipping not very comely for honest women' (ii. 294). But her leisure was not all consumed in amusements. She did not neglect her literary studies, and Randolph notes in April 1562 that 'she readeth daily after her dinner, instructed by a learned man, Mr. George Buchanan, somewhat of Livy' (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1561-2, entry 985). By her natural grace and frank amiability she disarmed the hostility of all except extremists, and even they were constrained to be content so long as Lord James Stewart remained at the head of affairs. Of the favour in which she held him she gave practical proof by creating him Earl of Mar, and afterwards by the grant of the earldom of Moray, then held by Huntly informally under the crown. This led to the expedition to the north of Scotland in the autumn of 1562, followed by Huntly's rebellion, defeat, and death. Mary's motives for consenting to the expedition have been variously interpreted. That she was privy to a scheme for the capture of Huntly is improbable, for it would have been then strangely impolitic. Nor, although the ambitious indiscretions of the Gordons, Huntly's kinsmen, were distasteful to her, is it likely ​ that she desired their ruin. But apparently ' she felt that it could not be avoided, and, while possibly she aimed to bind Huntly to her by ties of self-interest, she was no doubt well aware that the result of the expedition would favourably impress both the protestants and Elizabeth. If the whole business was odious to her, she managed admirably to mask her feelings. 'In all these garboils,' wrote Randolph, 'I never saw her merrier.' Her only regret was that 'she was not a man, to know what life it was to lie all night in the fields, or to walk on the causeway with a jack and knapschulle, a Glasgow buckler, and a broadsword' (ib. 1562, entry 648).
The news of the Huntly expedition increased Elizabeth's cordiality. In a letter of special kindliness she excused to Mary her procedure in France on the ground 'that we must guard our own homes when those of our neighbours are on fire' (Froude, cab. edit. vi. 612). Mary's pleasure at the receipt of the letter is recorded by Randolph. Sue 'trusted next year to travel as far south as she had done north' (2 Nov., Cal State Papers, For. Ser. 1502, entry 967). But almost immediately her hopes were again rudely shaken. The rumour reached her that when Elizabeth in October was at the point of death : only a single voice had been raised in her favour as Elizabeth's successor (Randolph, 18 Nov., Keith, ii. 177). She therefore now resolved to have done with uncertainties. The war between England and France, which might involve thelossof her dowry, was made the excuse for claiming a more secure interest in the succession than that guaranteed merely by Elizabeth's love (Maitland, 14 Nov., ib. p. 184). She gave Elizabeth to understand that she preferred her friendship even to that of the Guises (Randolph, 3 Dec. Illustrations of the Reign of Mary, p. 109); but finally, in February, she despatched Maitland to state her claims in the face of the English parliament, and if they were not admitted, to solemnly protest that she would seek the remedies provided for those ' who are enormously and excessively hurt' (Labanoff, i. 161-9; Keith, ii. 188-92).
Shortly after Maitland's departure the execution on 21 Feb. 15(52-3 of the poet Chastelard for concealing himself in Mary's bedroom gave rise to various rumours. The statements of Knox (ii. 367-9) and of Randolph (15 Feb., Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1563, entry 313) merely repeat current gossip, but Mary seems to have manifested imprudent partiality for Chastelard's society. Maitland took upon him to affirm that Chastelard had been employed by the Huguenots to compromise Mary's honour (De Quadra, 2S March, Cal State Papers, Span. Ser. 1558-67, p. 314), and Madame de Guise informed the Venetian ambassador that Chastelard had made a confession to that effect (1 May, Venetian State Papers, 1558-80, entry 324; cf. Trulet, v. 2; and Kervin de Lettenhove, Relations Politiques, iii. 308).
Up to this time the question of Mary's marriage had remained in abeyance. Several suitors, including Arran and Eric IV of Sweden, had been rejected, and Mary seemed content to await events. In the negotiations with Elizabeth the question had been ignored, probably because all parties felt that it was crucial. To Mary, who had set her heart on marrying Philip II's son, Don Carlos, it was the key of the position, her recognition as heir-presumptive being a mere aid to a grand scheme of sovereignty, embracing Scotland, Spain, and England. Elizabeth's chief concern was lest her own sovereignty should be endangered by Mary's marriage or the acknowledgment of her title. The Scots had no interest in the protection of Elizabeth's sovereignty ; their chief aim was to obtain such an alliance as would make Mary's title to the succession secure, for, as Maitland stated to De Quadra, to be nominated successor ' would be of no use unless she had the power to enforce her title' (Froude, vii. 50-51 ; Cal. State Papers, Spanish Ser. 1558-67, p. 308). It was the insecurity of the succession, especially as made manifest at the time of Elizabeth's illness, that, with other reasons, reconciled Maitland, and probably Moray, to the marriage with Don Carlos. While in London, Maitland in March 1563 secretly entered into negotiations for this purpose with De Quadra (cf. ib. pp. 305-16 ; Froude, vii. 50-5; Gachard, Philippe II et Don Carlos, 2nd edit. pp. 160-2, 180-92; Philippson, Histoire de Marie Stuart, vol. ii. chaps, iii. and iv. of bk. ii.)
Mary's negotiations with Elizabeth and her dubious policy in Scotland had rendered the catholic authorities uneasy, but she now addressed a letter to the Cardinal of Lorraine, expressing her determination to reestablish the old faith at the peril of her life (30 Jan. 1562-3, Labanoff, 1. 175-6), and another to the pope in similar terms (31 Jan. ib. p. 177), and by letters patent secretly appointed the cardinal to represent her at the council of Trent (18 March, ib. pj>. 179-80). It thus happened that while Maitland was assuring Mary, on the word of De Quadra, that Philip was ' not a sworn soldato del papa,' but a ' wise, politic prince,' who governed (as Mary was expected to do) the divers nations under his rule ' according to their own humour' (Addit. MS. 32091, ​ printed in Philippson's Marie Stuart et la Ligue Catholigue Universelle, pp. 37-40), Mary was endeavouring to further the marriage by entering into arrangements with Philip and others for the restoration of Catholicism. Maitland had suspicions of this, but it was not by him, or Elizabeth, or the Scots, that the project was to be wrecked. Elizabeth's warning, that a marriage to a foreign catholic prince would dissolve the concord between the two nations, both Maitland and Mary were prepared to brave (De Quadra, 26 June, in Cal. State Papers, Spanish Ser. 1558-67, p. 338, and Documents Intd. lxxxvii. 529 ; Randolph's Memorial, 20 Aug., Cal State Papers,For. Ser. 1563, entry 1162, and in Keith, ii. 205-10). Nor did the violent diatribes of Knox, although they occasioned an outburst of passionate anger from Mary (Knox, ii. 387-9), do much to endanger the scheme. Mary's hopes were dashed by her own relatives. The Guises, as well as Catherine de Medici, feared that the proposed alliance would prejudice the interests of France. They were hostile even to a Scottish and English alliance, and a project for the fusion of these two countries with Spain was regarded with positive consternation. To prevent both possibilities the Cardinal of Lorraine pressed Mary to accept the Archduke Charles of Austria, and succeeded in giving such prominence to the suit as to delay and embarrass the negotiations with Philip. Catherine de Medici, to foil Mary's purpose, made also a dubious offer to her of the hand of Charles IX. By the unscrupulous representations of the cardinal the pope was won over to favour the Austrian marriage, but Mary was proof against the pretences of Catherine and the persuasions of both cardinal and pope. Though unable to move Mary's resolution, the cardinal shook that of Philip. Philip was anxious not to imperil his immediate relations with France. That the ruin of such great hopes was effected chiefly by her uncle intensified the bitterness of Mary's disappointment. She was observed to be at times ' in great melancholie,' and to ' weep when there was little appearance of occasion' (Randolph, 31 Dec, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1563, entry 1481).
Elizabeth's first suggestion of her lover, Lord Robert Dudley, as a husband to the queen of Scots was made to Maitland in March 1563 (De Quadra, 28 March, Cal. State Papers, Spanish Ser. 1558-67, p. 313), but he jestingly replied that Elizabeth had better first marry him herself. When Elizabeth discovered that Mary favoured a foreign suitor — supposed to be the Archduke Charles — she authorised Randolph to vaguely suggest ' some nobleman of good birth within this our realm' (20 Aug., Keith, ii. 200, and Cal. State Papers,¥or. Ser. 1563, entry 1162). On mooting the matter to Mary, Randolph ' could not perceive what her mind' was (30 Dec, ib. entry 1559), but she professed a preference to remain a widow — at one time from regard to her late husband, at another because ' no such man as she looks for looks this way' (20 Feb. 1563-4, ib. 1564-5, entry 181 ; 8 March ib. entry 220). Before the summer of 1561 she had begun to think of the probable necessity of resigning herself to an English marriage. When at last Randolph definitely named Dudley, she expressed some incredulity and dissatisfaction (Randolph, 30 March, ib. entry 282). Elizabeth, Maitland and Moray asserted, intended nothing by the proposal but ' drift of time.' Drift of time was what Mary desired, and she utilised it for the furtherance of a match with Lord Darnley tsee Stewart, Henry], son of Lady Margaret Douglas [q. v.], next lineal heir after Mary to the English throne, by Matthew Stewart, earl of Lennox [q. v.], who disputed with the Hamiltons the succession after Mary to the Scottish throne. By such a marriage Mary would greatly strengthen her claims as heir-presumptive to Elizabeth. The chief objection to Darnley — that although professedly a protestant, he represented Elizabeth's enemies, the English catholics — was to Mary a prime recommendation, for she intended to mount the English throne by catholic aid and as a catholic queen. While in this she had to count on the opposition of Maitland and Moray, she was, in marrying Darnley, acting against the wishes of the Cardinal of Lorraine, who styled him 'ung gentil hutaudeau' (a handsome fribble) (De Foix, 23 May 1565, Teulet, ii. 199), and the Cardinal of Guise and Madame de Guise were in a 'marvellous agony' when they learned her intention (Smith to Leicester in Froude, vii. 245); even the pope and Philip preferred the Austrian marriage. The enterprise owed its inception to herself alone, encouraged only by the English catholics.
The theory of the Darnley love match (Camden, Robertson, Burton, &c.) is sufficiently refuted by Mary herself (Mémoire in Labanoff, i. 297). On purely political grounds. Darnley was her next choice after Don Carlos. She had practically decided on the marriage when she began negotiations for the recall of Lennox, who returned to Scotland in September 1564. After his arrival she despatched Sir James Melville to obtain leave of absence for Darnley, who was in England (Melville, Memoirs, p. 120). The superseding on 4 Dec. of Raulet — whose French predilections were ​ now inconvenient — by Rizzio as foreign secretary should also be noted. Presumably that Dudley might have ' honours and preferments conformable' to a suitor of Mary, Elizabeth in September created him Earl of Leicester, but if she really desired the success of his suit, it was folly to give consent to Darnley *s visit. Mary's intention was almost self-evident. Still to the last she kept up the appearance of being guided by Elizabeth. On 5 Feb. 1564-5 Randolph — about the time Darnley set out for Scotland — found her at St. Andrews, merrily pretending co live with ' her little troup' as a ' plain bourgeois wife,' and protesting that he should not ' spoil their pastime with his grave matters:' but when he did mention Leicester, she replied, with a placid irony which was lost on Randolph, that one whom *the queen his mistress did so well like' ' ought not to mislike her' (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1504-5, entry 901).
Mary first saw Darnley at Wemvss Castle in Fife' on Saturday, 38 Feb. 1504-5 (Randolph, 10 Feb., ib. entry 995). On the 26th he went to hear Knox preach, and in the evening, at the request of Moray, danced a galliard with the queen (Randolph, 27 Feb., ib. entry 1008). According to Sir James Melville, Mary was agreeably impressed with Darnley ' as the best proportioned lang man she had seen' (Memoirs, p. 134); but she also stated to Melville that at first she took his proposals ' in evil part.' Probably she did not wish the engagement fixed, or at least published prematurely. Darnley's egregious vanity and obstinate self-will may have also caused her some misgivings. But she gave an indication of her purpose in her firmer attitude towards Catholicism, and the expression of a desire to have ' all men live as they list' (Randolph, 20 March, in Keith, ii. 268-75). About the beginning of April Darnley while with Mary at Stirling fell ill of the measles. She spent most of her time in his sick room, and according to foreign rumour was on his recovery secretly married to him by a priest introduced into the castle by Rizzio (Memoire in Labanoff, vii. 66; De Foix, 26 April, on the supposed authority of a letter of Randolph, Teclet, ii. 193; De Silva, 26 April, on the authority of Lady Lennox, CaL State Papery Spanish Ser. 1558-67, p. 424 ; De Silva, 5 May, ib. p. 429). The rumour, though accepted by some historians as true, is insufficiently authenticated. What Randolph reported was that Mary treated Darnley as her affianced husband (15 April, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1564-5, entry 1099). On 1 May the English privy council resolved to warn Man- that the contemplated marriage would be dangerous to the weal of both countries (Illustrations of the Reign of Mary, pp. 115-17), but she expressed ingenuous, and to some extent justifiable, surprise at their objections (Throckmorton, 21 May, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1564-5, entry 1187).
Although Darnley's fatal facility in arousing jealousy and hate proved from the beginning a serious drawback, Mary did not neglect any possible means of reconciling the nobles to the marriage. She even made an attempt to induce Moray to commit himself before the result of Maitland's latest mission to England was known (Randolph, 8 May 1565, ib. entry 1151). James Hamilton, duke of Chatelherault [q. v.], and Archibald Campbell, fifth earl or Argyll, from hereditary jealousies, were unfavourably disposed, but all the principal lords were invited to sign & band in favour of the marriage (ib.), and special precautions were taken to secure the support of Darnlev's kinsman Morton, while Lindsay and Rut liven were also devoted to him by ' bond of blood.' The protestant party was thus divided. Moreover, when it was necessary to take action against Moray, George Gordon, fifth earl of Huntly [q. v.], was liberated from prison and Bothwell recalled to Scotland. To the articles of the kirk, requiring among other things the abolition of the mass in the 'queen's own person' (Knox, ii. 484-6), she did not finally reply till after the marriage, but on 12 July she made a proclamation disowning all intention to molest any of her subjects in the 'quiet using of their religion and conscience' (Reg. P. C. SeotL i. 338). This did not reconcile the kirk authorities, but it allayed the fears of the more moderate, while the catholics might infer that they at least would not be further molested. Her intentions may be judged from her letter to the pope in October 1564, expressing her determination to root out heresy in Scotland (Labanoff, it. 7; De Alava, 4 June, Teulet, v. 11 ; Duke d'Alba, 29 June, ib. v. 12 ; the king of Spain to De Silva, 6 June, CaL State Papers, Span. Ser. 1558-67; Pius IV, k 25 Sept., Pillippson, ii. 384; Mary to Philip, 14 July, Labanoff, vii. 339).
On 14 June Mary sent Hay to Elizabeth with a proposal to refer the points of difference between them to a commission (Keith, ii. 293-6; Labanoff, i. 266-71), but as this assumed Elizabeth's agreement to the marriage on certain conditions, the only reply was a request that Mary would give effect to the recall of Lennox and Darnley. A scheme of Moray to kidnap Darnley on 3 July and send him to England was frustrated, and ' shortly afterwards Moray and the other lords ​ withdrew to Stirling, whence on 15 July they sent a request for Elizabeth's help against the queen (Keith, ii. 329-30). Their action only hastened the accomplishment of Mary's purpose. On 29 July, between five and six in the morning, she was married to Darnley in the chapel of Holyrood, a dispensation having arrived from the pope on the 22nd (Knox, ii. 295; Randolph, 31 July, in Wright's Queen Elizabeth, i. 202-3). Elizabeth, still preferring words to actions, had on 30 July despatched Throckmorton with further protests and warnings (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1564-5, entry 1332), but Mary haughtily replied that Darnley was now joined with her in marriage, and requested her not to meddle with matters within the realm of Scotland (12 Aug. ib. entry 1381, 13 Aug. id. entry 1382). This open defiance stayed Elizabeth's interference. The lords whom Elizabeth had lured into rebellion were left to their fate. On 25 Aug. Mary took the field, at the head of five thousand men, and marched by Stirling to Glasgow. Moray
avoided her, and doubled back to Edinburgh, but his hope that the citizens would join him proved vain, and as the queen, in the face of a raging storm, immediately followed in his track, he retreated westwards into Argyll. Before setting out Mary had declared t-nat she would rather lose her crown than not be avenged on him (Randolph 27 Aug. ib. entry 1417), and now, while accepting the offer of the French ambassador to act as a mediator with Elizabeth, she refused it as regards the rebels, affirming that she would rather lose all than treat with her subjects (1 Oct., Labanoff, i. 288). In hope of Elizabeth's aid Moray ultimately marched south to Dumfries, but on the appearance of Mary on 10 Oct., at the head of eighteen thousand men, he took refuge in England.
Mary had an all-sufficient reason for proceeding to extremities against her brother : she intended to restore Catholicism. On 21 Jan. she informed the pope of her resolve to take advantage of the favourable moment -when her enemies were in exile or in her power to effect her purpose of restoring Catholicism (ib. vii. 8-10). Possibly she was hastened in her resolve by the arrival of ambassadors to obtain her adherence to the catholic league (Randolph, 7 Feb., ib, p. 77), but it scarcely required confirmation or incitement. After the arrival of the ambassadors the lords in her train were required to attend mass (ib.), and she now made no secret of her intention to confiscate the lands of the banished lords at the ensuing parliament in March (Bedford, 8 Feb., S. p. 80, 21 Feb., ib. p. 118). Her purpose was, however, almost immediately wrecked, partly by its conjunction with her scheme for securing absolute sovereignty, and partly by the treachery of Darnley.
Mary's resolve to attain independence of the nobles adequately explains in itself the sudden elevation of the Italian, Rizzio. The theory that he was a papal agent, except in so far as he was appointed to be so by Mary, has no evidence to support it; and the theory that he was Mary's lover, while it rests chiefly on the hints of Moray and the assertions of Darnley, is not necessary to explain either Rizzio's elevation or his murder (Froude, vii. 328, and Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1564-5, entry 1417; Teulet, ii. 243, 267; Tytler, iii. 215; Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entries 118, 171, 229; Ruthven's narrative in App. to Keith, History, and elsewhere). That Mary was bent on absolutism is attested by herself (Me moire sur la Noblesse, in Labanoff, vii. 297-9), and doubtless Darnley would have been made privy to her purpose and invited to aid in it but for his total incapacity. The original ground of quarrel between them was her refusal to him of the crown matrimonial (Randolph, 24 Jan., in Illustrations, p. 152, and Keith, ii. 405), and her previous toleration of his weaknesses was now, both by the jars between them and by his vices, turned into contempt and hatred (Randolph, 13 Feb., in Tytler ; Drury, 16 Feb., Keith, iii. 403). It is improbable that Rizzio would have long escaped the vengeance of the nobles even had he not aroused the jealousy of Darnley, and Darnley's jealousy, fanned, if not suggested, by the nobles, gave a semblance of legality to the plot against the Italian, the crown matrimonial being guaranteed to Darnley on condition that he would 'establish religion as it was at the queen's home-coming' (Randolph, 25 Feb., Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 134; cf. Douglas, James, fourth Earl of Morton).
During the turbulent scene on the evening of 9 March, when the crowd of angry nobles dragged Rizzio shrieking from her supper-room, Mary's high courage never wavered. In answer to her expostulations Darnley, on returning to the room, reproached her indelicately in Ruthven's presence, but after mildly defending herself, she at last told him that she would never rest till she gave him as sorrowful a heart as she had then. As she was seven months gone with child, her strength now began to fail her, and she burst into tears ; but when she learnt that Rizzio was really slain, ' And is it so ? ' she exclaimed ; ' then farewell tears! we must now think on revenge ' (Bedford and Ran​ dolph, 27 March, in App. to Robertson, History ; Ruthven, Narrative). During the night she was confined to her room, and strictly guarded. On the following evening Moray and the other lords arrived from Eng- land, and when Moray entered her presence she threw herself into his arms, exclaiming that if he had been with her he would not have seen her so uncourteously handled. But she was equally complaisant to Darnley, and on the following day she took him by one hand, and the earl by the other, and walked with them in her upper chamber for the space of one hour (Ruthven, Narrative). If, as she asserted, it was the intention of the lords to ward her in Stirling Castle till she had ' established their religion and given the king the crown matrimonial' (Labanoff, i. 347), they had no opportunity of intimating their final decision. Nor, although they accepted her offer to subscribe a band for their protection, was the band, which had been sent to her, ever signed. By early morning she and Darnley — after a midnight ride of twenty-five miles — had reached in safety the stronghold of Dunbar. More in despair than in hope the lords sent a messenger for the band, but no answer was vouchsafed to him. On the 15th she requested Elizabeth to let her plainly understand whether she intended to help the conspirators or not (id. i. 336). Meanwhile, by the aid of Both well and Huntly, she was soon at the head of a powerful force, with which on the 18th she entered Edinburgh. Moray's former experience made him hesitate to risk a second rebellion, and no attempt was made to oppose her. Nor did she now take further action against him and the other rebel lords ; and Morton and others directly concerned in the murder had already fled to England before a notice was issued on the 19th summoning them to answer for their share in it (Randolph, 21 March, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 156(5-8, entry 205 ; Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 437).
Apparently Mary did not at first gauge the full extent of Darnley's treachery, supposing him to have been chiefly the unwilling tool of Morton and others. When she learned the true character of the bargain between Darnley and the lords, she treated him with open scorn (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entries 252, 297, 298, 305, 362, 414, 417, 624, 885 ; Sir James Melville, p. 153 ; Knox, ii. 527, 533-5). Already there was talk of a divorce (Randolph, 25 April, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-1568, entry 305), and although a nominal reconciliation took place previous to her accouchement on 19 June (Randolph, 1 June, ib. entry 461), it did not survive her recovery (Sir Jahe.s Melville, p. 153). From this time matters went from bad to worse. In September Darnley told De Croc that he had a mind to go beyond sea (Keith, ii. 449); on 24 Oct. Maitland wrote to Beaton that it was ' ane heartbreak for her [Mary] to think that he [Darnley] should be her husband ' (Laing, ii. 72), and on 2 Dec. De Croc wrote to Beaton that ' Darnley's . bad deportment is incurable, nor can there be any good expected from him' (Tytler, iii. 232). As Mary '8 estrangement from Darnley increased, her favour towards Bothwell became more marked, and she also showed more cordiality to the protestant lords. She had been fully reconciled to Moray and Argyll before her accouchement, Maitland was restored to favour in September, and in December an amnesty was granted to Morton and Lindsay. Shortly before this the conference was held at Graigmillar to devise a method by which she might be rid of Darnley without prejudice to the young prince. Darnley was in Stirling at the time of the young prince's baptism in December, but declined to attend the ceremony, and shortly afterwards left for Glasgow. After writing to Beaton a letter of strong complaint against her husband, 20 Jan. 1566-7 (Labanoff, i. 395-9), Mary, either the same day (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 105) or the next (Diary handed in to Cecil), set out to visit him at Glasgow, where he was now convalescent from a severe illness. She had brought a litter with her to convey him, as she said, to Craigmillar (Crawford, Declaration), and after spending some days with him, persuaded him to accompany her to Edinburgh, which they reached on the 31st. Some distance from the city Bothwell met them with a cavalcade, and conveyed them to a house in Kirk-o'-Field (rented for the occasion from Robert Balfour), where Mary had been in the habit of spending the night; she left it about eleven clock on the night of 9 Feb. in the company of Bothwell for Holy rood Palace. Early the next morning the house was blown up and Darnley murdered.
Her motives in consenting to the murder have been variously interpreted. Some have supposed that both the murder and the subsequent marriage are sufficiently explained by her need of Bothwell's help to retain her sovereignty. That she was bound to him — as to her former husbands — chiefly by political ties, and throughout was actuated by considerations which, however various, were all more or less prudential, has even been put forth as a vindication. This was practically her own official explanation (Instructions, Labaxoff, ii. 31-50). But the view ​ most consistent with the facts is that she at last broke down in her attempt to play the cold ambitious role to which her relatives had trained her. The mingled motives of revenge and love seem alone sufficient to explain her fatuity. As some excuse — even apart from the peculiarities of that lawless age — it may be pleaded that Darnley was universally contemned, and, though never put upon his' trial, had been guilty both of murder and treason. It may be, also, that her feelings towards Both well were originally partly those of gratitude; but in any case, her constancy to him amidst universal obloquy must be ascribed rather to devotion than fear.
On 11 Feb. Mary expressed to Beaton her conviction that the assassins aimed at her own life as well as Darnley's, and her determination to exercise the utmost rigour against them (ib. ii. 4). Yet when the promation on the 12th of a reward of 2,000l. for their discovery led to the exhibition of placards on the Tolbooth declaring that he had been murdered by Bothwell and others with the queen's own consent (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 977, printed in Buchanan's Detection), the information caused her more embarrassment than indignation. The author was desired to appear and avow the same, and in answer promised to do so on the following Sunday if a pledge were given that a bona-fide inquiry would be made, but his proposals were ignored. Without honour or ceremony befitting his rank Darnley was privately buried during the night of 14 Feb. (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 109; Knox, ii. 550 ; Buchanan; Instructions for Lord Grey, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1 566-8, entry 1 1 29) ; and on the 16th Mary left for Seton, in company with Bothwell, Huntly, Argyll, and others concerned in the murder. Bishop Leslie states that the queen, not on the ground of health, but because Darnley was only a king by courtesy, did not observe the usual period of close seclusion customary during morning (Defence of Queen Mary's Honour). So far from aiding Lennox to bring the murderers to trial, she co-operated with Bothwell and others in insuring that the trial should be a fiasco (Keith, ii. 525-9; Labanofp, ii. 10-13, 17-19). Elizabeth, Beaton, the queen-mother, and the king of France all warned her that she was compromising her reputation. Before the trial Bothwell was rendered doubly secure by obtaining the command of Edinburgh and Blackness Castles and the superiority of Leith. It was already the general belief that he intended to marry the queen (Sir Jakes Melville, p. 175), and with this view measures were being taken for his divorce from Catherine Gordon (Drury, 29 March, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1053, 30 March, ib. 1054). The popular opinion as to Both weirs acquittal on 12 April was shown in the caricature representing him as a hare pursued by hounds, which Mary as a crowned mermaid lashed away from him. On the 19th Mary was carried oft' to Dunbar ; on 3 May Bothwell was divorced by the civil court, and on the 8th by the catholic court, reconstituted by Mary on the 24th of the previous December [cf. Hepburn, James, fourth Earl of Bothwell]. On the evidence of the Casket letters the Kidnapping was done at Mary's instigation, and this is corroborated by Kirkcaldy (26 April, V). entry 1131), Drury (27 April, ib. entry 1 1 39), and Melville (Memoirs, p. 177). Probably she wished to supply a plausible explanation of her precipitate marriage within less than three months of Darnley's death. On 27 April the lords who had met at Stirling sent her a letter offering a rescue if she had been carried off' unwillingly (quoted by Frottde, viii. 144, from manuscript in possession of Mr. Richard Almack ; Drury, 2 May, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1161) ; but to this she replied that it was true she had been evil and strangely handled, but since so well used she had no cause to complain (5 May, ib. entry 1173). On 6 May she entered Edinburgh, Bothwell leading her horse by the bridle (Diurnal, p. 111). The purpose of marriage was proclaimed on the 8th, and it took place on the 15th. In the contract her consent to the marriage was attributed to the advice of the ' maist part of her nobilitie ' (Labanoff, ii. 25), the reference being to the bond signed in Ainslie's tavern. She was married after the protestant fashion, and not only outwardly conformed to Bothwell's religion, but consented to the prohibition of catholic services throughout Scotland (Req. P. V. Scotl. i. 513). De Croc (18 May, Teulet, ii. 297), Drurv (20 May, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry*1226), and Sir James Melville (Memoirs, p. 182) state that soon after the marriage serious quarrels occurred between them ; that each was jealous of the other, and that Mary was frequently very distressed, and even threatened more than once to destroy herself. There was probably some ground for the statements. Both were imperious and impulsive ; and whether Mary was confederate or victim she could scarcely escape, even apart from quarrels, occasional attacks of remorse and despair. All statements as to essential unhappiness in their relations must, however, be received with caution, for the position now assumed in Scotland and France in order to justify in​ terference with Mary was that she was in subjection to Bothwell.
When Bothwell on 10 June made his escape from Borthwick Castle the lords, who had surrounded it with a view to his capture, assailed Mary with ' evil and unseemly speeches,' which, ' poor princess,' says Drury , ' she did with her speech defend, wanting other means for her revenge ' (12 June, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1289). On their departure towards Edinburgh, she left at evening in 'man's clothes, booted and spurred,' and joining Bothwell, rode with him to Dunbar (James Beaton, 17 June, in Laino, ii. 107 ; Captain of Inchkeith, Teulet, ii. 303 ; Buchanan, Hist. bk. xviii.) She brought no female apparel with her, but on reaching Dunbar obtained a dress, described by Drury as 'after the fashion of the women of Edinburgh, in a red petticoat [as she was of the 'largest size,' it reached only to her knees], sleeves tied with points, a "partlyte," a velvet hat and muffler' (17 June, Cal State Papers, For. Ser. entry 1313). It was in this attire that she confronted the lords at Carberry Hill on Sunday, 15 June, and the delay in coming to blows was due originally to the desire of the lords to avoid a conflict, and to the expectation of reinforcements on the part of Bothwell and Mary. The proposed single combat between Bothwell and Lindsay was negatived by the queen, who affirmed that the quarrel was hers even more than Bothwell's. It was only when she saw that the majority of her followers were unprepared to support him that she agreed to his leaving the field and to deliver hersel f to the enemy. His safety was her first concern, but she expected, when he had left her, to be treated as a sovereign, and hoped even yet either to effect his return or find the means of escape to him. When speedily undeceived by the brutal contumely of the troops, she assailed her captors with violent menaces. She talked of nothing ' but hanging and crucifying them air (De Croc, 17 June, in Teulet, ii. 310), the chief object of her wrath being Lindsav, the challenger of Bothwell (Captain of Inchkeith, ifl.p.308), to whom she swore, by his right hand held in hers, 'I will have your head for this, and therefore assure you' (Drury, 18 June, but ' the graphic episodes are omitted in Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1313). About ten o'clock in the summer twilight she entered Edinburgh, 'her face all disfigured with dust and tears,' amid the almost unbroken silence of the throng of citizens which so crowded the streets that two could scarce walk abreast (Buchanan, bk. xviii. Calderwood, ii. 365). She was lodged all night and all next day in the provost's house opposite the cross, and in the extremity of her despair showed herself all dishevelled at the window calling for help (Beaton, 17 June, in Laing, ii. 114; Captain of Inchkeith, in Teulet, ii. 308; De Croc, 17 June, id. p. 313). Seeing Maitland passing she prayed him for the love of God to come and speak to her (ib.), and inveighed against the attempt to separate her from her husband, ' with whom she hoped to live and die with the greatest content on earth ' (ib. p. 31 1 ). Her determination to stand by Bothwell and the knowledge that she was already in communication with him induced the lords, after bringing her to Holy rood, to send her, originally partly for her own protection, to Lochleven. borne of the extremists were for her summary execution, but the more responsible nobles were opposed to this, and deemed it impolitic meanwhile even to accuse her of the murder. On 20 June, if Morton's declaration is to be believed, the casket containing Mary's letters to Bothwell and other incriminating documents fell into the hands of the lords. Their production at such an early period, even apart from the names of those attesting the manner of their discovery (see Morton's declaration in Henderson's Casket Letters, pp. 113-16), renders still more difficult the acceptance of any of the theories of their forgery that have yet been propounded, and additional importance attaches to Morton's declaration from the fact that the French ambassador was furnished with a copy of the letters some time before 12 July (Cal State Papers, Spanish Ser. 1558-67,' p. 65). The first and original aim of the loras was not to accuse Mary of Darnley's murder but to obtain her consent to a divorce (Answer, 21 July, Keith, ii. 577-583 ; Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1485). 'They do not intend,' wrote Throckmorton, 'to touch the queen in surety or honour ' (21 July, ib. entry 1484). To have done so would have exposed them to the vengeance of other sovereigns, to the opposition of those catholic nobles who had supported them against Bothwell, and to the possibility of awkward revelations as to the relation of some of them to the murder. But Mary would not consent to a divorce. Rather than renounce Bothwell she was prepared to sacrifice 'kingdom and dignity ' (ib.) For this she gave as a cardinal reason that she was seven weeks gone with child (18 July, ib. entry 1468). Neither the statement of Claude Nau, possibly on her own authority, that she had a miscarriage of twins, nor that of Castelnau, that she gave birth to a daughter who was educated as a religieuse in the convent of Soissons, ​altogether incredible; but her pregnancy, if it existed, was rather an excuse than a reason. She was adverse to a divorce even after her escape from Lochleven. Ultimately at Lochleven the choice was given her of a divorce, a trial at which the Casket letters were to be adduced as evidence (Throckmorton, 25 July, ib. entry 1509; Keith, ii. 699), or an abdication; and she finally consented, after the undoubted use of some kind of threats, to the last.
Mary's demission was signed on 24 July (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 531–3), and she also at the same time signed an act nominating the Earl of Moray regent (ib. pp. 539–40). An act of parliament was passed on 15 Dec. that the action taken against her was ‘in her own default,’ inasmuch as it was clearly evident, both by her letters and by her marriage to Bothwell, that ‘she was privie art and part of the actual device and deed’ of the ‘murder of the king.’
Mary's deliverance from Lochleven was owing primarily to new marriage intrigues on the part of others, if not of herself. Any marriage proposals entertained by herself were merely intended to aid her escape. That Moray wished to arrange a marriage to Henry Stewart, lord Methven [q. v.] (Drury, 20 March 1568, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 2072), is not impossible; but even if she listened to his proposal, she had arranged otherwise. Her ‘over-great familiarity’ with George Douglas, brother to the laird of Lochleven, is mentioned as early as 18 Oct. 1567 (Drury, ib. entry 1792), and she is stated to have told his mother that ‘she had broken with the regent to marry him’ (2 April 1568, ib. entry 2106). He was ‘in a phantasy of love’ with her (ib. entry 2172), and the only question is as to how far his mother—bribed with hopes of the alliance—secretly connived at Mary's escape. It was also with similar hopes that the Hamiltons were taking up her cause, their intention being to secure her hand for the abbot of Arbroath (Foster, 30 April, ib. entry 2151, Drury to Cecil, 12 May; Sir James Melville, p. 200; see Hamilton, John, first Marquis of Hamilton). With the aid of George Douglas, who acted in concert with the Hamiltons, she escaped from Lochleven on the evening of 2 May 1568, and by sunrise arrived at Hamilton Palace (see especially Froude, viii. 307–11). Several powerful nobles having joined her standard, she was soon at the head of six thousand men, but so distrustful was she of the Hamiltons that she would have preferred not to risk a battle, and desired to proceed to Dumbarton Castle. Here she could have awaited in some security the issue of events, and the result of her appeal for aid to England and France. The disaster at Langside on 13 May was primarily caused by the determination of the Hamiltons to frustrate, if possible, her purpose of escape from them, and to snatch a victory which would place her in their power (Sir James Melville, p. 200). In company with John, fifth lord Fleming [q. v.], and Robert, fourth lord Boyd [q. v.], and a son of Lord Herries, she watched the result from an eminence commanding a full view of the engagement, and as soon as she saw that all was lost galloped away, with the intention of making for Dumbarton. Soon discovering, however, that flight in this direction was too hazardous, she, under the guidance of Lord Herries, turned southwards, not drawing bridle until she reached Sanquhar. On the 16th she crossed the Solway in a fishing-boat to Workington in Cumberland [see Lowther, Sir Richard]. While her rapid flight may be partly accounted for by horror of the possibility of a second imprisonment, her resolve to pass into England may perhaps be best explained by her ‘readiness to expose herself to all perils in hope of victory’ (Anderson, iv. 71). Her constitutional recklessness had only been augmented by misfortune. For mere protection she would probably have never sought Elizabeth; she became a suitor solely that she might humiliate her enemies. It must also be remembered that Elizabeth had strongly condemned the lords' proceedings, and had actually intended—though chiefly to prevent French interference—to come to Mary's help.
On receipt of a piteous letter from Mary on 19 May (Labanoff, ii. 73–7) Elizabeth gave orders that the Scottish queen, who on the 18th had been removed to Carlisle, should be treated with all respect, but closely guarded to prevent her escape (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 2214). It was, however, less her escape that was dreaded than the possibility that she might raise the north in her own behalf. To the letters of condolence sent by Lady Scrope and Knollys, Mary replied that her affairs were urgent, and requested that Elizabeth would vouchsafe her an interview (Labanoff, ii. 79–84). This was refused, until she had cleared herself of the accusations against her in connection with Darnley's murder. On 29 June Elizabeth assured Catherine de Medici ‘of the safety of her life and honour’ whatever might happen; but explained that, from considerations which she would rather have her imagine than ‘suffer her pen to write,’ she ‘could not treat her with such pomp and ceremony as she would otherwise desire’ (Cal. State ​ Papers, Foreign Ser. 1660-8, entry 2306). Although expressing willingness to discuss her case with Elizabeth, Mary affirmed that she would rather die than appear as a party to a suit with her own subjects (13 June, Labanoff, ii. 98). By implication she confessed the necessity of explaining her conduct, and in withholding explanation, except in the presence of Elizabeth, she seemed more careful of her dignity than her honour. Ultimately she somewhat modified her resolution, but only in the expectation that the accusation would be abandoned. After she had been transferred on 13 July from Carlisle to Bolton an arbitration with a view to an amicable arrangement was proposed. Darnley's murder was to be inquired into, but Mary was led to believe that both Elizabeth and the English commissioners, especially Norfolk, were favourably inclined (Examination of the Bishop of Ross in Murdin, p. 52). Norfolk, who was president of the conference which met at York on 4 Oct., had been secretly led by Maitland to cherish hopes of a marriage to her. Norfolk therefore privately laboured to prevent Moray giving in his accusation, by representing that if the queen were dishonoured, the Scottish right to the succession would be endangered. Moray was thus induced, while privately exhibiting the Casket documents to Norfolk and others, to content himself at the conference with justifying the queen's imprisonment merely on the ground of her marriage to Bothwell, his hope being that if he 'did nothing upon the worst charges the Queen of Scots would be induced to a reasonable composition,' It was Elizabeth alone who prevented a compromise, and compelled him to ' utter all he could to the Queen's dishonour,' To prevent ' sic rigorous and extreme dealing,' Mary offered free and full pardon to her rebels (22 Nov., Labanoff, ii. 23), but declined to be a party to any inquiry unless permitted to make her defence before Elizabeth and the ambassadors of the foreign powers (id.) At the opening of the second conference on 25 Nov. at Westminster, the Bishop of Ross protested in her name that while ready to treat for an arrangement, she would submit to no form of judgment. On the threat of losing Elizabeth's favour, Moray was required to give in his accusations. Lennox also appeared in support of the charges against the queen of Scots, producing certain special evidence. Mary's commissioners now demanded that she should be allowed to appear in person, and that her accusers should be arrested, but Elizabeth declined to do so until she had heard the proofs of their allegations. After the evidence against Mary had been given, the presumption of her guilt was declared to be so great that Elizabeth could not without 'manifest blemish of her own honour receive her into her presence,' Mary was informed that the evidence would be transmitted to her if she would give a direct answer to it ; but declining to acknowledge Elizabeth's jurisdiction, she contented herself with a vigorous denial of the charges, and a denunciation of Moray and his adherents as themselves the 'authors and inventors, and some of them even executors,' of the crime. For a second time proposal was made for Mary's abdication ; she replied ' that she would rather die I than demit her crown, and that the last words she would utter on earth would be those of a Queen of Scotland' (ib. ii. 274). A formal verdict, ostensibly ia favour of both parties, was recorded. Nothing had, it was declared, been adduced against Moray and his adherents 'that might impair their honour or allegiance,' and nothing had been ' sufficiently proven or shown by them against the Queen their sovereign whereby the Queen of England should conceive any evil opinion of her good sister,' But while Moray obtained Elizabeth's support in the regency, the queen of Scotland was retained in captivity. On 26 Feb. 1568-9 Mary was removed to Tutbury, and placed under the charge of the Earl of Shrewsbury. Subsequently she was transferred to Wingfield. Here in June a proposal was renewed to her through Leicester for a marriage with Norfolk, which was accepted. At her suggestion an attempt was also made at the Perth convention on 31 July to secure assent to her divorce, but the motion was lost (Reg. P. C. Scotl. ii. 8-9). Had the Scots been favourable, there was some intention to ask Elizabeth's consent to the marriage, but it was now conjoined with a plot for Mary's escape and a catholic rising in her favour. Though Norfolk in October was sent to the Tower, the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland determined to proceed, and on 14 Nov. began their advance to Tutbury, whence Mary had again been removed, with the view of effecting her liberation. She was therefore hastily transferred to Coventry, orders being given for her execution should there be immediate danger of her escape.
The assassination of Moray on 23 Jan. 1569-70, which aroused wild hopes of the near triumph of Catholicism, proved fatal rather than helpful to the cause of Mary. It put an end to compromise and kindled the embers of civil war. On learning of the murder Mary wrote to Beaton that she was only the more indebted to the assassin that he ​ had acted without her instigation, and promised to reward him with a pension (Labanoff, iii. 354) ; but to Moray's widow, whom she threatened with her direst vengeance unless the royal jewels were delivered up, she affirmed that the murder had been done 'agains our will,' and would not have been done 'if we micht have stopped the same' (letters in Hist. MSS. Comm. 6th Rep. i. 636-8).
Meanwhile the Norfolk marriage scheme was still persisted in, and as a preliminary to a further conspiracy a papal bull was obtained dissolving the marriage to Bothwell, on the ground of the rape previously committed (Norris, 29 Nov., Cal. State Fapers, For. Ser. 1569-71, entry 1412). In May 1570 Mary was transferred to Chatsworth, and ' here, in September, Elizabeth, chiefly with a view to relieve her immediate difficulties with France and Spain, commenced negotiations which probably were never meant seriously, and were finally broken off in April. On 28 Nov. Mary was removed to : Shrewsbury's home at Sheffield. The Ridolfi conspiracy [see Baillie, Charles], with which the Norfolk marriage scheme was conjoined, terminated in the execution of Norfolk on Tower Hill, 2 June 1572. The houses of parliament memorialised Elizabeth that Mary should share his fate. To this, more from prudence than generosity, Elizabeth demurred, but on the receipt of the news of the massacre of St. Bartholomew on 24 Aug. she endeavoured to entice the Scots into assuming the responsibility of disposing of her, the scheme being only frustrated by Morton's firmness in requiring that Elizabeth should at least commit herself to approval of the deed. From the time of the French massacre Mary was for five months guarded with special care, and kept in close confinement in her room ; but when the overthrow of her cause was assured, by the surrender of Edinburgh Castle, 29 May 1573, she was allowed as much liberty as was compatible with her detention.
Mary's remaining years were spent in scheming for her liberation. Her plans might have been more successful had they been more consistent. By her readiness to make terms either with Elizabeth or the catholics she only succeeded in effectually alienating both. In the midst of her efforts to conciliate the goodwill of Elizabeth by specimens of her needlework and other presents, and to secure the friendship of Leicester and Cecil, she was discovered in communication with the pope and Philip for a conquest of England, to be followed by her marriage to Don John of Austria, a preliminary being the capture of the young prince, her son, who was to be placed in Philip's keeping (Labanoff, iv. 845). Should she die before her purposes were achieved, her rights in England or elsewhere were to pass to the catholic king unless her son should be brought back to the catholic fold (ib. pp. 354-5). The execution of Morton, 2 June 1581, through the intrigues of Esm6 Stuart, created Duke of Lennox, led to a revival of catholic hopes, and to a plot for an invasion under the Duke of Guise, which was suspended by the raid of Ruthven, 22 Aug. 1582, and the expulsion of Lennox from Scotland. On learning that her son was in the hands of the protestant nobles Mary wrote a passionate letter to Elizabeth protesting that she now looked for no other kingdom than that of heaven, and beseeching that she might be allowed to leave England and retire to some place of rest where she might prepare her soul for God (ib. v. 318-38) : but the worth of these professions was subsequently shown by the confessions of Throckmorton, revealing her superintendence of all the details of the resumed project for the invasion of England. In the autumn of 1583 Mary became aware of the scandalous assertion by the Countess of Shrewsbury of a criminal intrigue between her and Shrewsbury. As a consequence of them Mary was on 25 Aug. transferred from the care of Shrewsbury to that of Sir Ralph Sadler, and on 3 Sept. she was removed from Sheffield to Wingfield. Lady Shrewsbury was then in the Tower, and Shrewsbury, in an interview with Elizabeth after resigning his charge of Mary, sincerely thanked Elizabeth for having freed him from two devils, his wife and the Queen of Scots (Teflet, v. 345). In a letter to Mauvissiere, 18 Oct., Mary expressed her determination, unless the calumnies were withdrawn, to make known to all the princes of Christendom the stories which Lady Shrewsbury had told her about Elizabeth (Labanoff, vi. 36-42), and in November penned to Elizabeth the extraordinary letter in which she recited with scarce concealed gusto every minutest item of Lady Shrewsbury's nauseous narrative (ib. pp. 51-7). It has been doubted whether Elizabeth received the letter, and it may have been intercepted by Cecil. Subsequently the council obtained from Lady Shrewsbury and her daughters a denial of the truth of the rumours of criminal intercourse between Shrewsbury and Mary. In the autumn of 1584 the Master of Gray [see Gryt, Patrick, sixth Lord Gray] also began his negotiations for a defensive league between England and Scotland, in connection with which James VI, at the instance of Gray, repudiated any desire to include his ​mother in the treaty. Thereupon she expressed her resolve to grant his rights to the crown, which he had usurped, to his greatest enemy rather than that he should enjoy them (12 May 1585, Labanoff, vi. 126). Among the papers subsequently seized at Chartley was a will by her bequeathing her crown to Philip II of Spain.
In the beginning of 1585 Mary was subjected to more rigorous treatment. She was again removed to the cold and unhealthy castle of Tutbury, her retinue was reduced, and in April she was placed under the harsh and morose guardianship of Sir Amyas Paulet [q. v.] In January 1585-6 she was transferred to the neighbouring house of Chartley. Shortly after, through the contrivance of Walsingham, facilities were afforded her for fatally entangling herself in the Babington conspiracy [see Babington, Anthony; Ballard, John; and Gifford, Gilbert]. As soon as she had unconsciously supplied sufficient evidence against herself to incur capital punishment, she was arrested at Tixall Park, whither she had been allowed to go on pretence of a hunting party, and detained there till her papers at Chartley had been searched.
She was removed to the castle of Fotheringay on 25 Sept., and was there brought to trial on 14 and 15 Oct. The skill with which she parried the most dangerous points of the evidence against her, and her complete command of all the resources of advocacy, are alone sufficient testimony to her great personal gifts (see State Trials, i. 1162-1227). Since, however, she denied having any communication with Babington, a supposition which cannot be entertained, her denial of any knowledge of that part of the conspiracy touching Elizabeth's life was necessarily robbed of all value. Besides, it was her usual habit to approve the assassination of her prominent enemies, and on Elizabeth she had the wrongs of a lifetime to revenge. She knew also that Elizabeth had more than once meditated her death, and was only restrained from carrying out her purpose by considerations of prudence. She had therefore in Elizabeth's case the justification that she was acting in self-defence. In truth Elizabeth or her ministers had no reason to suppose, and scarcely any right to expect, that Mary would interfere to save Elizabeth from the worst that Elizabeth's enemies might contrive against her.
After much hesitation and uncertainty, and an attempt to induce the keepers to assume the responsibility of putting Mary to death, Elizabeth signed the warrant for the execution, and it took place in the great hall of Fotheringay on the morning of 8 Feb. 1586-7. Mary was only informed of the fate that was in store for her on the previous day, but she must from the time of her trial have contemplated such a possibility, and she expressed her joy that her miseries were so near an end, and that the grace had been granted her by God to 'die for the honour of his name and of his Church, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman.' By all her words and bearing it was her purpose to impress on the spectators of her last moments, and on the world to whom the story of her execution would be told, her royal andn sacred dignity, as the sole rightful queen, not only of Scotland but of England, and vicegerent, of the catholic church in Britain. But although she met her fate with unsurpassable courage, and acted her part with appropriate dignity and grace, her preparations lacked the essential virtue of simplicity. Elizabeth strenuously maintained that she never intended the execution to take place, and conferred on her victim the honour of a royal burial in Peterborough Cathedral on 1 Aug. The body was transferred by her son, on his accession to the English throne, to Henry VII's Chapel in Westminster Abbey, where he erected to her memory a monument with recumbent effigy (for description of the execution see especially 'Reporte of the Manner of the Execution of the Scots Queene' in Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd ser. iii. 113-18; 'Examvnacioun and Death of Mary the Queen of Skottes, A$^o$ 1586, 8 Feb., by R. W.,' the original manuscript of which was exhibited at Peterborough in 1887, and was, it appears, written by R. Wynkfielde, not by Richard Wigmore, as previously supposed: ' Le Rapport de la Manière de l'Execution de la Royne d'Écosse,' by Thomas Andrewes, in Labanoff, Lettres Inédites de Marie Stuart, pp. 246-7; 'La Mort de la Royne d'Écosse,' 1589, republished in Jebb, ii. 609-70; and the very minute 'Le vray rapport' in Teulet, iv. 153-64, on which the narrative of Mr. Froude is chiefly founded. The matter is also discussed in Notes and Queries, especially 7th ser. vols. iv. v.)
The religious issues involved in the fate of Mary Stuart are in themselves sufficient to assign her a place in the first rank of historic personages. In her were concentrated the last hopes of catholicism in Britain. Still the story of her life will probably attract the attention of the world when the ecclesiastical questions with which it was associated are forgotten. It is as a woman, rather than a queen or a religious champion, that she specially appeals to the interest of mankind. Her story is, in truth, one of the most moving of human tragedies. ​Consummate actress though she occasionally proved herself to be, nature in all the great emergencies of her life asserted its supremacy. Her heart, in almost every variation of its moods, has been bared to the world; and if the views of both classes of extremists, blinded by religious or political prepossessions, be set aside, there is a pretty general consensus of opinion as to her main aims and characteristics. She cared comparatively little for the mere trappings of state, and her tastes were simple and natural, yet without question her ruling passion was the passion for sovereignty. It had been carefully nurtured in her from childhood, and it was specially whetted by her loss of the French crown, by her rivalry with Elizabeth, and by the contumacy of the Scots. It was all the stronger that it was unassociated with any kind of patriotism. It was undoubtedly stronger than her devotion to catholicism. When the Cardinal of Lorraine and the pope himself sought to limit her ambitions, she declined to be influenced by their entreaties. She also sacrificed her catholicism, not merely by implication but openly, to her passion for Bothwell. The Darnley and Bothwell episodes, though important from their bearing on certain aspects of her character, were rather the occasions than the causes of her misfortunes. Her position in Scotland was really all along so perilous, and, notwithstanding her skilful manoeuvring and subtle tact, she was at once so daring in ambition and so fickle and impulsive, so liable to be blinded by her passionate desires and to be dominated by personal likes and hates, that disaster was sooner or later inevitable.
The only extant specimens of Mary's poetry, in addition to the reputed sonnets to Bothwell, are the verses on the death of her husband Francis II, printed by Brantôme in his 'Memoirs,' reprinted in Laing, ii. 217-219; a sonnet to Elizabeth in Italian and French (Cotton Lib. Calig. D. i. fol. 316), printed in Laing, ii. 220-1; 'Meditation fait par la Reyne d'Escosse Dovarière de France, recuellie d'un Livre des Consolations Divines, composez par l'evesque de Ross,' published in a rare volume — 'Lettres et Traitez Chrestiens,' by David Home at Bergerac in 1613, republished in 'Bannatyne Miscellany,' i. 343-7; and a sonnet written at Fotheringay, in the State Paper Office. Bishop Montague, in his Preface to the 'Works' of King James, 1616, states that 'she wrote a book of verses in French of the "Institution of a Prince," all with her owne hand, and wrought the cover of it with her needle,' and that the volume was then in the possession of the king. In the catalogue of books presented by Drummond of Hawthornden to the university of Edinburgh there appears under the name of Mary 'Tetrasticha ou Quatrains a son fils M. S.' Some verses written by her on her 'Book of Hours' are printed in Labanoff, vii. 346-52. The lines beginning 'Adieu plaisant pays de France,' at one time attributed to her, were written by Meusnier de Querlon, who published them as hers in 1765.
A large number of the reputed portraits of the queen of Scots are fictitious; and various portraits of other royal Marys have been catalogued as portraits of her. For special information reference may be made to the paper by Mr. George Scharf in 'Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries,' 2nd ser. vii. 58-86; Labanoff's 'Notice sur la Collection des Portraits de Marie Stuart,' pp. 246-7; and the Preface to Chalmers's 'Life of Mary Queen of Scots.' The catalogues of the Peterborough Exhibition, 1887, and of the Stuart Exhibition, 1889, may also be consulted for a list of portraits and relics. Mr. Scharf specially mentions as genuine and characteristic a miniature by Janet with Francis II in the royal library at Windsor; a portrait by Janet in a widow's dress ('Le Deuil Blanc'), formerly at Hampton Court and now at Windsor; a portrait painted at Sheffield in 1578 by D. Mytens at Hardwick Hall (the original of the Morton portrait and others); and the memorial pictures, with the execution in the background, at Windsor, Cobham Hall, and Blairs College.
T. F. H.
Dictionary of National Biography, Errata (1904), p.195–196 N.B.— f.e. stands for from end and l.l. for last line
| Page | Col. | Line | |
| 374 | ii | 23 f.e. | Mary Stuart: for 10 Jan. read 11 June |
| 378 | i | 8 | for Huntly read Moray |
| 383 | i | 16 f.e. | for morning read mourning |